- (1.)These three revision petitions arc directed against the common order disposing of three interlocutory applications m a partition suit, Original Suit No. 75 of 1964 on the file of the Civil Judge, Mangalore.
(2.)The suit was filed by the first respondent Mahabala Bhatt as plaintiff against his father Ramachandra Bhat (Petitioner), his brothers Shama Bhat and Shivarama Bhat (Respondents 2 and 3) and the said Shama Bhats two sons Ramachandra Bhat and Ramakrishna Bhat, -- arrayed as defendants 1 to 5 respectively (Vide G. R. P, 537/67).
(3.)Immediately on filing the suit, the first respondent (plaintiff) made an application for appointment of a Commissioner to prepare an inventory of moveables and jewellery in the family house together with valuation thereof and also to make an estimate of the yield of an areca garden belonging to the family situated within a particular survey number specified in the application. To that application, he made only defendants 1 and 2 parties as respondents. A lawyer practising in Mangalore was appointed Commissioner for the purpose. He went to the family house and the areca garden and made a report in compliance with the direction in Court's warrant appointing him as Commissioner. He gave notice of his proposed execution of the warrant only to defendants 1 and 2 and not to the third defendant. The third defendant is said to be residing in Mangalore as an apprentice under a Chartered Accountant. No notice was given to him. The first two defendants admitted their presence at the time the Commissioner executed his warrant. Third defendant was not present.
;