APHC010557772024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3299]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 431/2025 Between:

Yenduri Sri Ramalingeswara Rao ...PETITIONER AND Yenduri Keerthi ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. KVSD RAVI TEJA Counsel for the Respondent:

1.

The Court made the following:

ORDER :

Heard Sri K.V.S.D.Ravi Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is the 2^nd plaintiff in O.S.No.186 of 1994 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada, filed for partition of the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties.

3. The learned Court passed a preliminary decree on 27.04.2001. The

1^st respondent was the 1^st plaintiff and the remaining respondents were the defendants.

4. The 1^st plaintiff filed F.D.P.14 of 2021 in I.A.No.110 of 2021 in O.S.No.186 of 1994 seeking the appointment of an advocate-commissioner to divide the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties as per the preliminary decree dated 27.04.2001, and the same was allowed by order dated 27.09.2024.

5. Challenging the order dated 27.09.2024, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the preliminary decree, the parties partitioned their properties through two registered partition deeds dated 19.06.2007 and 21.06.2007. His submission is that the partition was mutually agreed and was acted upon through the registered partition deeds. The parties also derived benefits from the said partition. Therefore, the 1^st plaintiff was estopped from filing the application for a Final Decree. He argues that while passing the impugned order, the learned Court failed to consider objections so raised and proceeded to appoint an advocate-commissioner to submit a report regarding the division of the plaint schedule properties.

7. I have considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

8. A perusal of paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of the impugned order shows that the contentions of the petitioner herein (2^nd plaintiff) to the effect of partition deeds were noted by the learned Court. It is further evident from the order that the learned Court has neither passed a final order nor a final decree. Only an advocate-commissioner has been appointed to submit a report.

9. After the advocate-commissioner files the report, the petitioner will certainly have an opportunity to file objections against such report, as also to make his submissions regarding the alleged registered partition deeds. Since F.D.P. No. 14 of 2021 in I.A. No. 110 of 2021 for preparation of the Final decree, is pending before the learned Court, it is not the stage to consider about the alleged partition deeds, at the time of issue of advocate- commissioner to submit the report for proceedings in Final decree proceedings. Whether in view of such partition deeds, any Final decree is required to be passed or as per the partition deeds or differently in consonance with the preliminary decree, all such matters if so raised can be considered at the time of the proceedings for Final decree.

10. Since, the proceedings for the Final decree are pending before the learned Court, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

11. The Civil Revision Petition lacks merits and is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.

____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date :30.01.2025.

RPD.

450 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI (DISMISSED)

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 431 OF 2025 Date :30.01.2025 RPD.