JUDGMENT Bakhshish Kaur, J. (Oral) - Both the above-noted petitions shall be disposed of by this single order as the impugned orders have been passed in the suits for partition filed by the same plaintiffs. 2. On an application filed by the defendant to permit him to construct/repair the property in dispute, the learned trial Court had appointed Shri Manjit Singh, S.D.O. as Local Commissioner with the direction to report about the existing condition of the building. The Local Commissioner submitted his report on 17.7.1999. It is reported that the property in dispute needs immediate repairs. Immediately the trial Court passed the order dated 17.7.1999 which reads as under: "Local Commissioner submitted his report. As per the report of the Local Commissioner, the house in dispute is unfit for human habitation, the persons living under its roof are prone to risk of life. As such, it requires immediate repair/reconstruction. So, in view of order dated 5.6.1999 and report of Local Commissioner, defendant No. 1 is allowed to carry out necessary repairs. To come up for evidence of plaintiff on 3.8.1999, at his own responsibility." 3. From the above, it is clear that the other party was not afforded opportunity to file objections to the report of the Local Commissioner. The trial Court straightaway accepted the report without hearing the other side. Further, the defendant was also allowed to carry out necessary repairs. The defendant again moved an application on 20.7.1999 which was disposed of by a subsequent order dated 6.8.1999. The order dated 6.8.1999 is also under challenge in C.R. No. 4453 of 1999. Again, without considering the important aspect of the case that the suit was for partition, the trial Court permitted the defendant to reconstruct the building. 4. The revision as it is against the issue of Commission may not be maintainable because the order directing issuance of Commissioner is only interlocutory in nature. The Commissioners report is subject to all checks and any item or evidence contained in the report is also subject to all checks in law. The question whether an order declining to set aside a Commissioners report is revisable, came up for consideration before a Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Kanaram Nair v. Madhavan Nair, 1996(1) KLT 162 which is also referred in Venkataram Naidu v. Vasanthi, 2000(1) RCR(Civil) 576. The revision was found to be not maintainable. The question whether an order declining to set aside a Commissioners report is revisable, came up for consideration before a Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Kanaram Nair v. Madhavan Nair, 1996(1) KLT 162 which is also referred in Venkataram Naidu v. Vasanthi, 2000(1) RCR(Civil) 576. The revision was found to be not maintainable. However, in the cases in hand the rights of the petitioner are substantially affected by straightaway accepting the report of the Local Commissioner as it simultaneously permitted the defendant to carry out necessary repairs and then again permitted him to reconstruct the building. 5. For the reasons aforestated, both these revisions are accepted. The orders dated 17.7.1999 and 6.8.1999 under challenge, are set aside. The case is ordered to be sent back to the trial Court with a direction to pass necessary orders before accepting the report of the Local Commissioner, after giving notice to the parties/counsel for the parties. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 30.8.2000, the next date stated to be fixed before the trial Court. 6. The petitions are accordingly, disposed of. Petition accepted.