( 1 ) THE petitioners filed the present civil revision petition questioning the order made in a memo in LA. No. 408/2004 in O. S. No. 155/2004 on the file of Junior civil Judge, Huzurnagar dated 15-12-2005.

( 2 ) SN Anantha Krishna, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioners would maintain that no doubt the order made appointing Commissioner in I. A. No. 498/2004 in O. S. No. 155/2004 had attained finality and the same was not questioned. But however when the impracticability of the execution of the warrant had been expressed the question of reentrustment would not arise and that too on a memo such order cannot be made for the reason that it will amount to appointing a second Commissioner inasmuch as a different purpose had been mentioned while making the re-entrustment of the warrant. The learned Counsel made elaborate submissions pointing out the relevant portions of the order both made in LA. No. 408/2004 in O. S. No. 155/2004 initially and subsequent thereto while slightly modifying the same. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on v Bikshapati Reddy v V Satyamma, 2004 (3) ALD 769 = 2004 (4) ALT 415, gopalakrishnan v P Shanmugam, AIR 1995 Mad. 274, S Rukman N

Click Here to Read the rest of this document