THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:5272 of 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 21.10.2008, in I.A.No.876 of 2008 in R.C.No.6 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, wherein the said application filed by the respondent herein under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner, was allowed appointing an Advocate-Commissioner to inspect the schedule premises and note the physical features like the business carried on by the petitioner herein in vegetables and other household articles and dumping of vegetable waste in the schedule premises. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. The main contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order was passed without giving any notice to the petitioner herein. It appears that the petitioner herein has not entered appearance as on the date of the impugned order. It is stated that the Advocate- Commissioner is appointed on an out of order application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Advocate-Commissioner has filed two reports, one on 05.11.2008 and the other on 21.11.2008 and the contents of the two reports are inconsistent and contradictory. 5. On 05.11.2008, the Commissioner stated to have inspected the schedule premises and noted the physical features and articles in which the petitioner herein was trading and he drafted proceedings of his inspection, which is in the nature of notes of inspection. It is only on 21.11.2008 that the Commissioner has filed a report enclosing the proceedings drafted on 05.11.2008. If there are any inconsistencies or contradictions between the two reports, the petitioner herein can certainly take advantage of the same. It is open to the petitioner to file her objections to the report and also cross-examine the Advocate-Commissioner, if considered necessary. Now that the Commissioner has filed his report after duly executing the warrant, the question of interfering with the impugned order, appointing Advocate- Commissioner does not arise at this stage. 5. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above observations. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 16th September, 2011. Tsy