1. A stitch in time saves nine, and this protraction of the litigation by a Civil Revision Petition could have been easily avoided if only the simple process of setting aside the first commission report had been done by the trial Court before issuing the second commission or the Court and Commissioner had observed the rule of giving notice before doing anything affecting his interest.

2. It is admitted that the commissioner, when he inspected the property on the first occasion to prepare a plan and report-this suit involves identification of plots of land claimed by the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant did not give notice to the affected party because he was told by the plaintiffs that there was some urgency. On the second occasion, for assessing damages, the commissioner inspected the property and then also he could not and did not give notice to the most vitally interested defendant. The third time another commissioner was deputed to assess the damages additionally caused, according to the plaintiffs, but he proceeded on the footing that there was an earlier plan and report made by his predecessor commissioner. The grievance of the 1st defendant, who has come up in rev