JUDGMENT 1. 1. This revision has been directed against the order dated 22.2.91, passed by A.M.J.M. No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, by which the said court rejected the application of the petitioner for appointment of another Commissioner. 2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff non-petitioner filed a suit for injunction on 22.11.1990. The plaintiff non-petitioner also filed an application for temporary injunction praying that the defendant petitioners be restrained from raising any constructions on the disputed land and to maintain status-quo. The plaintiff also submitted an application on the same day stating that the defendant-petitioners are going to raise constructions unauthorisingly infront of the rented room and as such a Commissioner be appointed for inspection of the site and to submit his report. 3. On 23.11.1990, the trial court passed an order appointing Shri Mohan Lal Sharma, Commissioner, for inspection of the site. He was directed to inspect the site and submit his report on 24-11-1990. Shri Mohan Lal, after inspection on 23-11-1990 submitted his report on 24-11-1990. In his report, he stated that at the spot, Shri Tej Singh Kamdar, alongwith Shri B.L. Agrawal were present on behalf of the plaintiff. There were 4-5 persons more. Shri Tej Singh Kamdar told that the defendant was also present. The Commissioner told him that he had been appointed to inspect the site by the Court, but Shri Akheraj Singh did not sign on the notice. Later on the Commissioner inspected the site. On 1-12-1990, the petitioners submitted an application before the trial court, mentioning therein that neither the Commissioner went at the site nor gave any notice to them. The Commissioner has prepared the report in collusion with the counsel for the plaintiff. They prayed that under these circumstances, another Commissioner be appointed for inspection of site in the presence of the parties and to submit his report. This application was supported by an affidavit of Shri Akheraj Singh, one of the petitioners. In Para No. 2 of the application, it has been mentioned that the Commissioner did not go to the site on 23-11-1990, for inspection. In para No. 3, it has been further mentioned that the report has been prepared in collusion with the counsel for the plaintiff and further that no notice was ever issued to the defendant petitioners. 4. In Para No. 2 of the application, it has been mentioned that the Commissioner did not go to the site on 23-11-1990, for inspection. In para No. 3, it has been further mentioned that the report has been prepared in collusion with the counsel for the plaintiff and further that no notice was ever issued to the defendant petitioners. 4. The trial court rejected the application of the petitioner simply on the ground that on 24-11-1990, when the case was listed before the Court counsel for the defendant No. 2 was present but no objection was raised at that time. Shri Nigam argued that the case was fixed on 24-11-1990, for submission of report, but the counsel, who was attending on behalf of the defendant No. 2 had no opportunity to go through the report of the Commissioner. When he came to know about the Commissioner's report, then he submitted an application on 1-12-1990, mentioning therein that no notice was given by the Commissioner before inspection and further that the Commissioner did not go at the site and prepared the report in collusion with the counsel for the plaintiff non- petitioner. He further argued that the lower court has rejected their application in arbitrary way, simply on the ground that when the case was listed on 24-11-1990, no such objection was raised by the petitioners. He argued that the ground given by the lower court for rejecting the application is erroneous and as such second Commissioner be ordered to be appointed by setting aside the order of the lower court and in case the order is allowed to stand, it would cause irreparable injury to the petitioners. 5. On the other hand, Shri Pareek, counsel for the plaintiff non-petitioner argued that it has not been mentioned in the application submitted by the petitioners as to how the report of the Commissioner is wrong. He argued that the lower court has exercised its jurisdiction rightly and there is no illegality or irregularity and as such the revision is not maintainable. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. From the affidavit submitted by Shri Akheraj Singh before the trial court, which has not been controverted by the plaintiff non-petitioner, it has been proved that the Commissioner without any notice to the petitioners, inspected the site. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. From the affidavit submitted by Shri Akheraj Singh before the trial court, which has not been controverted by the plaintiff non-petitioner, it has been proved that the Commissioner without any notice to the petitioners, inspected the site. Under these circumstances in my view, the application submitted by the petitioners for appointment of second Commissioner has been rejected in arbitrary way. The lower court should have appointed another Commissioner when no notice was served on the petitioners, either by the Court or by the Commissioner for inspection of the site. It is settled law that a Commissioner before inspecting the site, must give notice to both the sides. In the present case, no notice was given by the Commissioner and as such in my opinion, the trial Court acted arbitrarily, in refusing the prayer of the petitioners for appointment of the second Commissioner. 7. Consequently, I allow the revision, set-aside the order dated 22-2-1991, & direct the trial court to appoint another Commissioner in the presence of parties. The trial court will also fix date and time for inspection of the site by the Commissioner in the presence of the parties. 8. Record of the trial court be sent immediately alongwith a copy of this order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 10-2-1992. Till then, both the parties shall maintain status-quo.Revision allowed. *******