ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of CPC, is filed assailing the order dated 4.3.2021 passed in I.A. No. 664 of 2019 in O.S. No. 27 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Medak wherein and whereby the petition filed by the first respondent herein to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to divide the suit Schedule-A and B property by metes and bounds in terms of the preliminary decree dated 6.10.2004 for allotting half share to her and half share to the plaintiff in suit A schedule property and half share to the plaintiff and remaining half share to her and other respondents in the suit Schedule-B property was allowed.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties to this Civil Revision Petition will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in the trial court.

3. Petitioner is assignee of Decree and legal heir of defendant No. 2 in the suit. The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit O.S. No. 27 of 2004 against the second respondent/defendant No. 1 and respondent No. 3/defendant No. 2 for partition and separate possession and for allotment of equal share to the respondent No. 1/plaintiff and respondent Nos.3/defendant No. 2 in the suit schedule A and B properties. In the said suit, a preliminary decree was passed on 6.10.2004 allotting half share to respondent No. 1/plaintiff and half share to respondent No. 3/defendant No. 2. The respondent No. 3/defendant No. 2 died leaving behind her, respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 as his legal heirs. So by virtue of the preliminary decree her father became the absolute owner and possessor of half of the suit schedule A and B properties. She further submitted that her father, due to love and affection towards her as she had looked after his welfare, gifted his half share of the suit schedule A property through registered gift deed vide document No. 2347 of 2008 dated 31.3.2008 and transferred his rights and interest accrued under the said preliminary decree to her. Therefore, it is necessary to divide the suit schedule properties into half share by metes and bounds by appointing an advocate commissioner to enable the Court to allot half share to them and half share to the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties.

4. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed counter contending that the preliminary decree became inexecutable due to lapse of 12 years statutory time to get it transformed into a final decree by actual division of the property in terms of the preliminary decree. Moreover, the petitioner has not filed a petition to amend the preliminary decree in the array of cause title as they are the legal heirs of the respondent No. 3/defendant No. 2. It is further contended that the respondent No. 4 filed a suit for partition and separate possession and that all the suit schedule properties mentioned in the preliminary decree including the share of the respondent No. 3/defendant No. 2 are the subject properties of the said suit and that the petitioner is contesting the said suit and filed her written statement. The first respondent denied the execution of gift deed by his father in favour of the petitioner herein. The petitioner filed the present petition only to prolong and harass this respondent/plaintiff and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Respondent No. 4 filed her counter stating that she filed O.S. No. 22 of 2017 seeking partition and separate possession of all the properties with respect to the agricultural lands and a house and that the said suit covers all the properties covered in the earlier suit and that the petitioner herein and the fourth and fifth respondents are not parties to the suit O.S. No. 27 of 2004. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Respondent No. 5 filed her counter stating that the preliminary decree dated 6.10.2004 became inexecutable due to lapse of 12 years statutory time to get it transformed into a final decree by actual division of the property in terms of preliminary decree. She further submitted that due to amendment to th