Muppaneni Dasaradha Ramaiah vs Dasari Venkata Seshamma
2023 Latest Caselaw 2033 AP

        HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

           CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1133 of 2022


   Between:

   Muppaneni Dasaradha Ramaiah, S/o Late
   Venkata Ramaiah, aged about 62 years and
   another
                                                   ... Petitioners

                                And

   Dasari    Venkata       Seshamma,    W/o
   Venkateswarlu, aged about 62 years, R/o
   Thellabadu Village, Maddipadu     Mandal,
   Prakasam District and others.

                                                 ... Respondents


Counsel for the petitioners           : Smt. Kavitha Gottipati
Counsel for respondents               : Somisetty Ganesh Babu


                              ORDER

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in final decree petition filed

the above revision against order, dated 24.12.2021 passed in

I.A.No.250 of 2020 in F.D.P.No.317 of 2012 in O.S.No.18 of

1997 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Addanki.

2. Petitioners herein being plaintiffs filed O.S.No.18 of

1997 seeking partition of suit schedule properties and for

mesne profits. The suit was initially dismissed by judgment Page 2 of 6 SRS,J CRP No.1133 of 2022

and decree dated 30.05.2009. Against said judgment and

decree, plaintiffs filed appeal and said appeal was allowed

partly and preliminary decree was passed on 30.11.2010.

Pursuant to passing of preliminary decree, defendant Nos.3

and 4 filed FDP No.317 of 2012. In Final Decree Petition,

Advocate Commissioner was appointed. Advocate

Commissioner executed warrant and filed report, dated

03.01.2020. No objections were reported on 30.01.2020 and

learned counsel for the petitioners advanced arguments on

12.02.2020. Final Decree Petition was posted to 24.02.2020

for arguments of respondents. At that juncture, petitioners

filed present application under Section 151 of CPC to reopen

the Final Decree Petition and to permit the petitioners to file

objections on the Commissioner's report.

3. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was

contended that learned Advocate Commissioner executed

warrant without intimating petitioners and filed report. On

30.01.2020, the Court below recorded no objections on

petitioner's side and posted the matter to 12.02.2020 for

submitting arguments. Deponent has been suffering from

fever and petitioners' counsel was engaged in other Court and Page 3 of 6 SRS,J CRP No.1133 of 2022

hence, objections could not be filed. With the above reasons,

petitioners filed I.A.

4. Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit opposing the

application.

5. Court below, by order, dated 24.12.2021, dismissed the

petition. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is filed.

6. Heard Smt. Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Sri O. Uday Kumar, learned counsel

representing Sri Somisetty Ganesh Babu, learned counsel for

respondent Nos.1 and 2.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that

learned Advocate Commissioner did not issue notice to the

petitioners before or at the time of executing the warrant. She

would further submit that after filing of report of Advocate

Commissioner, no opportunity was given to the petitioners to

file objections. Court below, without considering these

aspects, dismissed the application.

8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, on the

other hand, supported order of the Court below.

 Page 4 of 6                                         SRS,J
                                                    CRP No.1133 of 2022

9. The point to be considered is whether the order under

revision needs to be interfered with?

10. Preliminary decree was passed on 30.11.2010.

Pursuant to passing of preliminary decree, defendant Nos.3

and 4 in the suit filed Final Decree Petition No.317 of 2012.

Petitioners being plaintiffs did not file any application seeking

final decree pursuant to the preliminary decree.

11. As seen from the order of the Court below, learned

Advocate Commissioner issued notices on 12.03.2015 and

15.08.2019 to the counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and

those notices with endorsements were filed along with

Advocate Commissioner's report. Petitioners did not file any

objections to the report of Advocate Commissioner and in fact

as seen from the order, no objections were reported on

30.01.2020. Even learned counsel for the petitioners

advanced arguments on 12.02.2020. When Final Decree

Petition was coming up for arguments of respondents,

present application is filed to permit the petitioners to file

objections.

12. Thus, the fact is that counsel for the petitioners

reported on objection on the Commissioner's report, dated Page 5 of 6 SRS,J CRP No.1133 of 2022

03.01.2020 and advanced arguments on 12.02.2020. Filing of

I.A when the Final Decree Petition is coming up for

arguments on behalf of respondent is nothing but abuse of

process of the Court. The Court below, after considering all

these facts, dismissed the petition. This Court does not find

any illegality or perversity in the order under revision, which

warrants interference of this Court. Hence, this civil revision

petition is liable to be dismissed.

13. Accordingly this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No

costs.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

                                        _________________________
                                        SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
Date : 18.04.2023
ikn
 Page 6 of 6                               SRS,J
                                          CRP No.1133 of 2022

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1133 of 2022

Date : 18.04.2023

ikn