THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.5927 AND 5928 OF 2009 DATED:13-12- 2010. Between Y.Venkataiah … Petitioner-Plaintiff And The Nellore Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner, Nellore …Respondent-Defendant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.5927 AND 5928 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions are directed against the orders, dated 11-11-2009 in I.A.Nos.618 and 619 of 2009 in O.S.No.207 of 2004, on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, whereunder and whereby, the applications filed to examine the advocate commissioner and mark the commissioner’s report were dismissed on the ground that it is a part of the record. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision reported in VADDA RAJESWARAMMA V DR.V.L.NARASIMHA CHARYULU AND OTHERS [1], wherein it was held thus: “According to sub-rule (2) to Rule 10of Order XXVI, the report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him during the inspection shall be evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record. Therefore, there is no controversy with regard to admissibility of the report as evidence during the trial and making the report of the Commissioner part of record. However, before the report is made part of the record and taken as piece of evidence it is open for the Court to examine Commissioner on matters referred to him in his report or as to the manner in which he had made the investigation. It is open for the parties also to examine the Commissioner or mattes referred to him in his report or on the manner in which he had conducted the investigation. This is the only interpretation which can be placed upon sub-rule (2) to Rule 10. There is no other interpretation possible of this sub-rule. It is a different matter if neither the Court nor any of the parties takes any objection to the report. In such a situation the report becomes final and becomes part of the record and also can be taken as piece of evidence. But once a party objects to it had specifically wants that the Commissioner be examined, the Court has no option but to examine the Commissioner. Unless that is done, the Commissioner’s report can neither form part of the record nor it can become a piece of evidence which could be relied upon at the stage of disposal of the suit.” Even the above decision has no application to the present facts of the case because there is no specific allegation in the grounds that he has filed objection petition to the commissioner’s report and in spite of objections, the evidence of the commissioner was recorded. Therefore, the revisions are totally devoid of merit and are liable to be dismissed. 3. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. -------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:13-12- 2010 Hsd [1] AIR 1998 AP 202