“Under the impugned order, the learned Judge opined that without appointing a Commissioner, mesne profits cannot be determined, and, accordingly, appointed one T.Venugopala Rao, Advocate as Commissioner for petition purposes. The impugned order does not give any details. It is unfortunate that the learned Judge has not admitted to the petition averments or the objections raised by the defendants in their counter. The impugned order is bereft of any reasons and is also not clear as to for what purposes, the Advocate-Commissioner has been appointed. It was simply stated that one T.Venugopala Rao, Advocate was appointed as Commissioner for petition purposes. That apart, the petition is also not clear and the details of the tenants and neighbouring tenants of the suit schedule property, whom the plaintiff wants to be examined on her behalf, were not furnished. If really respondent/plaintiff wants to examine somebody on her behalf, she should have furnished all the details enlisting the witnesses to be examined and the purpose therefore. Further, the impugned order is not clear as to whether the AdvocateCommissioner was appointed only to ascertain the mesne profits or to examine the unnamed witnesses and
