Judgment :- 1. Inasmuch as the issue involved in all the civil revision petitions are one and the same, a common order is being passed. 2. The Civil Revision Petition, in C.R.P.No.373 of 2010, had been filed to set aside the fair and decretal order, dated 3.9.2009, made in I.A.No.117 of 2008, in I.A.No.2 of 2008, in O.S.No.96 of 2004, on the file of the District Court, Tiruvannamalai. 3. The Civil Revision Petition, in C.R.P.No.374 of 2010, had been filed to set aside the fair and decretal order, dated 3.9.2009, made in I.A.No.118 of 2008, in I.A.No.2 of 2008, in O.S.No.96 of 2004, on the file of the District Court, Tiruvannamalai. 4. The Civil Revision Petition, in C.R.P.No.375 of 2010, had been filed to set aside the fair and decretal order, dated 3.9.2009, made in I.A.No.68 of 2009, in I.A.No.2 of 2008, in O.S.No.96 of 2004, on the file of the District Court, Tiruvannamalai. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the interlocutory application in I.A.No.68 of 2009, has been filed by the petitioner for the condonation of the delay of 256 days in filing the objections by the petitioner for the report of the Advocate Commissioner, dated 18.2.2008. 6. It has been stated that the trial Court ought to have been liberal in condoning the delay of the petitioner, which is a public authority, in filing the objections for the Advocate Commissioner’s report. It has also been stated that the defendants were not present at the time of the inspection of the property in question, by the Advocate Commissioner. 7. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 8. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner the order passed by the learned District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, dated 3.9.2009, in I.A.No.68 of 2009 in I.A.No.2 of 2008, in O.S.No.96 of 2004, is set aside and the learned District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, is directed to take on file the objections filed by the petitioner Panchayat Board, on 21.7.2009, to the Commissioner’s Report, dated 18.2.2008, for further consideration of the same, as per law. The Civil Revision Petition, in C.R.P.No.375 of 2010, is ordered accordingly. 9. The Civil Revision Petition, in C.R.P.No.375 of 2010, is ordered accordingly. 9. In view of the order passed by this Court, in C.R.P.No.375 of 2010, the civil revision petitions, in C.R.P.Nos.373 and 374 stand closed, with the observation that it would be open to the learned District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, to issue a commission to such person, as it thinks fit, to make local investigation and to report thereon to the Court, if found necessary to do so, during the trial in the suit, in O.S.No.96 of 2004, as per Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.