( 1 ) THE applicant submits that he has filed S. C. S. no. 53/01 for declaration and injunction on 16. 4. 01 against the opponent wherein a separate application for appointment of court commissioner at exh. 6 was also submitted. Inspite of Caveat petition no. 68/01 is on the suit record, the ex-parte order appointing the court commissioner was passed by the trial court on 16. 4. 01 and ultimately resulted into the court commissioners partial ex-parte panchanama report made on 16. 4. 01 at Mark-A. Inspite of neither further direction nor further application for getting direction was submitted by the court commissioner, the order below Mark A was passed on 21. 6. 01 by the trial court. It is against these orders, the present civil revision applications are preferred.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Kapadia, L. A. for the applicants in both the revision applications, the trial court failed to direct notice to the defendant prior to passing ex-parte order below exh. 6. Inspite of the fact that in various decisions of Supreme Court and High Court, the ratio has been held that it is not the business of the court to collect evidence for a party, the trial court passed the order b