Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
S Manohar Died vs R Mohana on 2 December, 2022
Bench: Subba Reddy Satti
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2498 of 2022
1. S. Manohar (Died) per Lrs.
2. Meena, W/o Late s. Manohar, aged 48 years and two others.
(All residents of Moorthiganivooru, H/o Vavithota Post,
Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor District).
... Petitioners
Versus
R. Mohana, W/o Munuswamy, aged 60 years, R/o
Moorthiganivooru, H/o Vavithota Post, Puthalapattu Mandal,
Chittoor District and two others.
... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners : Sri N. Prem Raj
Counsel for respondents : ---
ORDER:
Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 in I.A.No.135 of 2017 in
O.S.No.382 of 2013 on the file of learned Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Chittoor, filed the above revision under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, challenging the docket order, dated
15.06.2022.
2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the revision filed O.S.No.382
of 2013 against husband of revision petitioner No.2 and father
of revision petitioner Nos.3 and 4 as well as against respondent
No.3 herein for partition of plaint schedule properties into four
equal shares by metes and bounds etc.
3. Preliminary decree was passed on 14.08.2014, dividing
the property into four equal shares and allotted two such shares
to the plaintiffs by metes and bounds with good and bad
qualities.
4. Pursuant to the preliminary decree, plaintiffs filed
I.A.No.134 of 2018 to pass final decree in terms of preliminary
decree and I.A.No.135 of 2018 to appoint Advocate
Commissioner seeking division of suit schedule properties with
the help of Mandal Surveyor, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor
District. The Court below, by order, dated 15.06.2022 recorded
a finding that as per the averments of the counter, respondents
have no objection to appoint Advocate Commissioner for
division of properties and adjourned the matter to 17.06.2022
for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. Subsequently on
01.09.2022, Advocate Commissioner was appointed.
Challenging the docket order, dated 15.06.2022, the present
revision is filed by respondent Nos.3 to 5.
5. Heard Sri N. Prem Raj, learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that ex
parte preliminary decree was passed on 14.08.2014 and
defendant No.1 died on 26.10.2014 and no petition was filed to
bring the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.1 on
record. He would further contend that petitioner Nos.3 and 4
are minors by the time of passing the decree and they are taking
steps to file appeal against the judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.382 of 2013. Hence, prays to set aside the docket order,
dated 15.06.2022.
7. The point to be considered is that whether the order
under revision warrants interference of this Court?
8. In suit O.S.No.382 of 2013, preliminary decree was
passed on 14.08.2014. Husband of petitioner No.2 and father of
petitioner Nos.3 and 4 is arrayed as party to the suit. Against
the Preliminary Decree, as per the record, no appeal is filed and
as of now it became final. Basing on the preliminary decree,
I.A.No.134 of 2018 is filed to pass final decree and I.A.No.135 of
2018 is filed to appoint Advocate Commissioner to divide
property in terms of preliminary decree.
9. A perusal of the docket proceedings would indicate that
notice was given to the other side and counter was also filed.
After considering all the averments trial Court allowed the
petition and appointed Advocate Commissioner. Since trial
Court followed the procedure, this Court does not find any
reason to interfere with the order of the trial Court. Hence, this
revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the
stage of admission. No costs.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications
shall stand closed.
__________________________
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
Date : 02.12.2022
ikn
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2498 of 2022
Date: 02.12.2022
ikn
