Judgment The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.155 of 2003 pending on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Dharapuram. 2. The plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.577 of 2006 praying for marking of the Commissioners report along with the plan as Court exhibits. The said application was opposed by the respondents herein/defendants in the suit stating that the report of the Commissioner is not in consonance with the Warrant of Commission issued by the Court. 3. The lower Court, on consideration of the materials available on record, has found that the report and the plan submitted by the learned Advocate Commissioner is not in accordance with the Warrant of Commission issued by the Court and therefore, it cannot be marked. 4. Mr. S. Lakshmanasamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that since the Advocate Commissioner has already inspected the suit property in the presence of Advocates appearing for both parties and thereafter, filed his report along with the plan, it should be marked as documents on his side or as Court exhibits. 5. Even though the respondents in this revision were served with notices through Court, they have not chosen to enter appearance. 6. The Court has considered the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Since the report of the Commissioner along with the plan is already on record, it can be marked as Court exhibits. However, it is made clear that before marking the Commissioners report and plan, liberty is granted to the Revision Petitioner as well as to the respondents to file their objections and in the event of filing such objections, the Court has to consider those objections and the report of the Advocate Commissioner along with the other evidence to be let in by the parties at the time of trial of the suit. 7. The civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. However, there will be no order as to costs.