ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners, aggrieved by the order dated 23.01.2019 in I.A No.1135 of 2017 in O.S No.54 of 1981 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.

2. Heard Sri Srikanth Hariharan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.Saidulu, learned counsel representing Sri P.Giri Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 7 on record.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the I.A No.1135 of 2017 was filed by the D.Hr. to treat I.A No.697 of 1993 as interim final decree and to pass orders for preparation of another final decree after dividing the property, but the trial Court without considering the same had dismissed the application instead of appointing an Advocate Commissioner. He further submitted that I.A No.697 of 1993 was earlier filed to pass final decree but however, the Court had only re-determined the shares but not passed the final decree. As such, there was a need to appoint an advocate commissioner. The earlier advocate commissioner could not divide the property between the parties as he could not locate the property in survey numbers 919 and 921/A as they were covered with roads and houses and construction of compound walls. The suit schedule house property was also not divided in view of the orders of the High Court to enquire into the rights of Nima Kaur and legal heirs of respondent No.1.

3.1. He further submitted that the I.A No.1491 of 1993 was filed by one Nima Kaur and the said application was dismissed on 12.07.1996. She preferred revision before this Court vide CRP No.3124 of 1996 and the same was allowed vide order dated 28.07.1997. But however, the matter has gone up to the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court confirmed the partial final decree passed by the Court allotting half share to the petitioner – plaintiff, 1/6^th share to respondent No.2 - Juguna Bai and 1/3^rd share to respondent No.3 – Satnam Kaur and rejected the claim of respondent No.4 – Nima Kaur @ Jaswanth Kaur and advised her to file a separate suit, as such a final decree has to be passed accordingly.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents also reported no objection for appointing an Advocate Commissioner and to divide the property among the sharers accordingly.

5. Perused the order of the Court below in I.A No.1135 of 2017. The Court below considered that as it had passed final decree proceedings on 05.07.2007 and the matter went up to the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court confirmed the final decree proceedings passed by the lower Court, once again appointing an advocate commissioner and passing final decree would amount to setting aside the final decree proceedings dated 05.07.2007 and dismissed the petition.

6. However merely apportioning the property without dividing it by metes and bounds could not be considered as passing final decree. The properties need to be demarcated and possession shall be handed over to the parties in accordance with the shares allotted to them to enable them to enjoy the fruits of the decree. The Court below dismissing the petition would amount to not exercising the jurisdiction vested in it, in accordance with law.

7. As such, it is considered fit to set aside the order of the Court below in I.A No.1135 of 2017 dated 23.01.2019 and to direct the trial Court to appoint an advocate commissioner afresh for demarcating the properties with the assistance of surveyor and to pass a final decree by treating the earlier one as an interim final decree. As the very purpose of filing the suit for partition and division of property in accordance with the shares allotted to them is not achieved, I.A No.697 of 1993 can be considered only as an interim final decree.

8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar in I.A No.1135 of 2017 in I.A No.697 of 1993 in O.S No.54 of 1981 dated 23.01.2019 directing the trial Court to appoint an advoca