ORDER: The civil revision petition in directed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Tiruchengodu, dated 7.4.2003 made in I.A.No.536 of 2003 in O.S.No.540 of 1987 in and by which the learned District Munsif dismissed the said petition filed for marking Commissioner’s report and sketch as Court documents. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. 3. It is seen that the petitioners-plaintiffs filed the suit O.S.No.540 of 1987 against the District Collector, Namakkal and Tahsildar, Tiruchengodu and six others, praying for permanent injunction. It is further seen that pending suit, the first plaintiff viz., K.P.Venkatachalam filed I.A.No.1363 of 1987, praying for appointment of Commissioner to note down the existence of the suit channel in S.No.293/2 and its continuous up to the Kuttai in S.No.292/2 and all other physicial features. Admittedly in the said application, the defendants 1 and 2 viz., District Collector, Namakkal and Tahsildar, Tiruchengodu alone were impleaded as respondents. Pursuant to the same, the Commissioner visited the suit channel and submitted a report as well as the sketch. When the above documents were sought to be marked on the side of the plaintiffs, an objection was raised by the defendants 3 to 8 stating that they were not parties to the said application and not given opportunity to put forth their objections. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has brought to my notice that in the Commissioner’s report, there is a reference for appearance of the 4th defendant when he visited the suit channel, as said earlier, admittedly, the defendants 3 to 8 were not impleaded as parties in the Commissioner’s application. In such circumstances, the learned District Munsif, is perfectly right in rejecting the request of the petitioners. It is also brought to my notice that as on date, the suit as against defendants 1 and 2 viz., District Collector, Namakkal and Tahsildar, Tiruchengodu was dismissed as not pressed. This is clear from para 4 of the impugned order. It is also relevant to note that as per Civil Rules of Practice, all contesting parties are to be shown as parties and they must be given an opportunity before passing any order. Such recourse has not been followed by the plaintiffs when he filed I.A.No.1363 of 1987. In such circumstances, I do not find any error or infirmity for interference. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. 4. Such recourse has not been followed by the plaintiffs when he filed I.A.No.1363 of 1987. In such circumstances, I do not find any error or infirmity for interference. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. 4. Inasmuch as the suit is of the year 1987, the learned District Munsif, Tiruchengodu is directed to dispose of the suit on or before 3.7.2004. Both parties are expected to cooperate with the Court for the disposal of the suit as directed above.