JUDGMENT

(Per Hon’ble Justice B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO)

1. This Memorandum of appeal is filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 assailing the order passed by the learned XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, in I.A.No.928 of 2014 in O.S.No.645 of 2007 dated 22.12.2025.

2. Appellants are the respondents-defendants and sole respondent is the petitioner-plaintiff in I.A.No.928 of 2014 in O.S.No.645 of 2007.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties will be herein after referred to as appellants-defendants and respondent-plaintiff.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants - defendants submits that the learned Trial Court ought to have considered the objections filed by the appellants-defendants on 09.04.2025 to the advocate commissioner report dated 17.03.2025, wherein they stated that they raised objections with regard to illegalities in executing the commission warrant and also the absence of the appellants-defendants on 16.02.2025 when B and C schedule properties were recorded. The learned Trial Court failed to consider that the signature of the surveyor in the final report filed by the advocate commissioner is different from the surveyor whose name appears in the sketch map. This clearly shows that there are illegalities and infirmities in the sketch map and the report submitted by the advocate commissioner. The appellants defendants have vehemently objected to the report vide I.A.No.1437 of 2025 in I.A.No.929 of 2014 in O.S.No.645 of 2007, but the learned Trial Court turned a blind eye and dismissed the interlocutory application. The learned Trial Court ought to have considered that the appellants defendants have clearly stated that neither the appellants - defendants nor their advocate were physically present during the second visit made by the advocate commissioner and the same fact was brought to the notice of the learned Trial Court and the said contention was discredited on the ground that notice was given to the parties and therefore non-appearance does not make the report inadmissible. The learned Trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that non-appearance of the appellants - defendants be interpreted as having given a no objection to the proceedings. Appellants - defendants were not aware about the hearing dated 22.12.2025 wherein the fate of the rights and liabilities were decided in their absence. The learned Trial Court ought to have appointed a Court commissioner to ensure that the auction process would be conducted smoothly and transparently instead of suo moto giving a direction to conduct auction on 20.01.2026. Before the auction of B and C schedule properties, the final decree ought to have been validly stamped in order to ensure the validity of the auction proceedings. The conduct of auction dated 20.01.2026 would be detrimental to the interest of both the parties. The learned Trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the extent of land in C schedule properties is admeasuring 300 sq.yds., whereas in reality the land available is only to an extent of 157 sq.yds. The said infirmity was brought to the notice of the learned Trial Court in I.A.No.1437 of 2025 in I.A.No.929 of 2014 but the learned Trial Court has dismissed the said I.A. stating that there is no illegality in the advocate commissioner report dated 17.03.2025 and prayed to set aside the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent - plaintiff submits that the learned Trial Court has considered all the contentions raised by the appellants - defendants and passed final decree on 22.12.2025 in I.A.No.928 of 2014 in O.S.No.645 of 2007 and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

6. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

7. Now the point for consideration is: whether the order passed by the learned Trial Court suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so does it require interference of this Court?

8. Respondent - plaintiff has filed suit in O.S.No.645 of 2007 for partition and separate possession against the appella