The trial Court's appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for partition was upheld as the Petitioners failed to demonstrate substantial grounds for interference, emphasizing the importance of judicial discretion in such matters.

COMMON ORDER:

1. The CRP.No.2788 of 2023 is filed by the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 in final decree proceedings and the CRP.No.1719 of 2023 is filed by the Respondent Nos.21 & 22 in final decree proceedings questioning the Order dated 11.05.2023 passed in I.A.No.114 of 2023 (Old I.A.No.220 of 2016) in O.S.No.170 of 1990 by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, in appointing an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of partition of schedule properties in final decree proceedings.

2. The brief facts are as follows:-

3. The Respondent No.1 herein along with her sister filed the suit O.S.No.170 of 1990 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor for partition of the schedule properties. Preliminary Decree was passed on 18.08.1997. Aggrieved by the Preliminary Decree, Petitioners/Defendants filed A.S.No.1196 of 1997. Appeal was allowed in part by Judgment and Decree dated 11.12.2015. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, Petitioners/Defendants filed S.L.P.No.6390 of 2017 before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the same was dismissed on 01.04.2022.

4. The Respondent No.1 herein filed I.A.No.220 of 2016 under Order 21 Rule 13 and Section 151 of CPC to pass final decree in terms of Preliminary Decree by appointing an Advocate Commissioner for division of the suit schedule properties and to assess mesne profits from the petition schedule mentioned properties and for such other appropriate orders.

5. Pending the above Final Decree, the revision petitioners filed I.A.No.143 of 2020 to receive certain documents; I.A.No.7 of 2022 in I.A.No.220 of 2016 under Section 151 of CPC to reopen I.A.No.220 of 2016 for the purpose of further hearing.

6. The trial Court on 11.03.2022 passed orders appointing Advocate Commissioner. Questioning the same, the Petitioners in CRP.No.2788 of 2023 filed CRP.No.873 of 2022 before this Court and also questioned the orders passed in I.A.No.7 of 2022. In CRP.Nos.859 & 873 of 2022 this Court vide Common Order dated 31.07.2023 set-aside the orders of the trial Court and directed the trial Court to pass fresh orders after hearing the Petitioners within a period of six (6) weeks after disposal of I.A.No.143 of 2023.

7. The trial Court thereafter passed impugned orders on 26.06.2023 appointing the Advocate Commissioner and allowed I.A.No.114 of 2023.

Hence, the Civil Revision Petitions are filed.

8. Heard Sri M. Chalapathi Rao, lerned counsel for the Petitioners in CRP.No.2788 of 2023, Sri P. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners in CRP.No.1791 of 2023 and Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondents in both the CRPs.

9. The counsel for the Petitioners in CRP.No.2788 of 2023 submits that in spite of there being a direction of this Court to hear both the counsel and pass orders, the trial Court without adhering to the same had passed the impugned order without hearing the Petitioners.

10. The counsel for the Petitioners in CRP.No.1791 of 2023 contended that certain erroneous observations were made by the trial Court in the impugned order. Further, it was contended that the Petitioners in CRP.No.1791 were set ex parte in final decree proceedings and therefore an application was filed seeking to set-aside the ex parte order and the trail Court without considering the I.A for setting aside the ex parte order had passed the impugned order.

11. Coming to the first ground urged by the counsel for the Petitioners in CRP.No.2788 of 2023, the opening paragraphs of the impugned order refers to the fact that the counsel for the Respondent No.3 had sought time on 08.05.2023 on the ground that some objections are pending and they would prefer a Revision against the orders passed in I.A.No.169 of 2023 dated 03.05.2023. The trial Court considering the time frame fixed by this Court in the Revisions referred above, treated the arguments of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 as heard and the appointment of Advocate Commissioner would not cause any prejudice to the Respondents and even if the Petitioners seek a Revision