Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Anne Sarojini vs Kosaraju Prameela on 13 November, 2024
APHC010626602
022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH [346
AT AMARAVATI 0]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2604/2022
Between:
Anne Sarojini and Others ...Petitioner(S)
AND
Kosaraju Prameela and Others ...Respondent(S)
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2592/2022
Between:
Anne Sarojini and Others ...Petitioner(S)
AND
Kosaraju Prameela and ...Respondent(S)
Others
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1 SAI GANGADHAR
. CHAMARTY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
This Court made the following:-
2
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.2604 and 2592 of 2022
COMMON ORDER:
1. Since both the Civil Revision Petitions raised out of the
proceedings dated 03.08.2022 issued by the Principal Senior Civil
Judge at Gudivada, Krishna District, in I.A.Nos.104 of 2018 and
I.A.No.350 of 2021 respectively in O.S.No.103 of 1992, these
matters are being disposed of by way of this Common Order.
2. The Petitioners are the Defendants. The Suit in O.S.No.103
of 1992 was filed for partition of the suit schedule properties and a
preliminary decree was passed in the suit. An Advocate
Commissioner was appointed to ascertain the mesne profits from
the years 1988-89 to 1990-91 till the date of delivery in respect of
the delivery of the plaint schedule properties.
3. I.A.No.350 of 2021 was filed to appoint an Advocate
Commissioner for partition of the plaint schedule properties taking
into consideration of good and bad qualities and allotment of such
share to the Petitioners.
4. I.A.No.404 of 2018 was filed to appoint an Advocate
Commissioner to conduct enquiry and to ascertain the means
profits from the years 1988-1989 to 1990-1991 till the date of
delivery of those items under plaint schedule properties.
5. Both the applications were ordered 28.06.2022 and Warrant
dated 03.08.2022 was issued directing the Advocate
Commissioner to serve notice on the available parties and their
respective counsels to execute the warrant. Aggrieved by the said
order, present Revisions petitions are filed.
6. Heard Sri Sai Gagnadhar Chamarthi, learned counsel for
the Petitioners.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the trial
Court ought not to have observed that in the light of specific
direction to issue notice to the available parties only. It is his
contention that the Advocate Commissioner may submit a report,
without issuing notice to all the parties, which would further delay
the relief.
8. The Petitioners herein are the Defendant Nos.1 to 3. As per
the order passed by the trial Court, the Respondent
Nos.4 to 7/Defendants Nos.4, 6 & 7 remained ex parte and the
notice to the 5th Respondent returned as 'died', in both the I.As.
But, as seen from the Judgment, they had contested the suit,
through their counsel Sri D. Budha Prasad.
9. Therefore, it may not be proper to issue notice only to the
available parties. The Advocate Commissioner shall therefore
issue notice to the Respondent Nos.4, 6 and 7 or their successors
before proceeding to the execution order as directed by the trial
Court.
10. In view of the same, these Civil Revision Petitions are
allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending
applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 13.11.2024
Pnr
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 2604 & 2592 of 2022
Date: 13.11.2024
Pnr
