Settigarl Sukanya vs Adula Sharvani
2021 Latest Caselaw 2399 Tel

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

            CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1114 of 2020
ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908, is filed challenging the order dated 07.10.2020

passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, FAC, I Additional

Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Mahabubnagar, in I.A.No.55 of 2017 in

O.S.No.336 of 2007.

Heard both sides and perused the record.

A perusal of the record discloses that the respondent-plaintiff

filed the above suit for partition and separate possession of the suit

schedule properties, and the trial Court has decreed the suit

preliminarily vide judgment and decree dated 17.09.2010. Challenging

the same, the petitioners-defendants filed A.S.No.92 of 2010, and the

learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge,

Mahabubnagar, vide judgment and decree dated 14.08.2013 has

dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment and decree dated

17.09.2010 passed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the respondent-

plaintiff filed I.A.No.55 of 2017 in O.S.No.336 of 2007 under Order

XXVI Rule 13 C.P.C. to divide the suit schedule lands into two equal

shares showing the two shares in the sketch map with the help of

Surveyor and to file a Report for passing final decree. The learned

Principal Senior Civil Judge vide the impugned order dated 07.10.2020,

while holding that there is no option to the trial Court except to follow

the judgment dated 14.08.2013 passed by the lower appellate Court in

A.S.No.92 of 2010, and as per the preliminary decree, a final decree has

to be passed in accordance with the Advocate Commissioner's Report,

has rejected the objections raised by the petitioners-defendants and

accepted the Advocate Commissioner's Report.

Admittedly, the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2013 passed

by the Judge, Family Court, Mahabubnagar, in A.S.No.92 of 2010 has

attained finality, as no Second Appeal has been preferred against the

said judgment by the petitioners herein. Furthermore, the Advocate

Commissioner, who has been appointed to divide the suit schedule

property by metes and bounds, has to do so in accordance with the

preliminary decree dated 17.09.2010 passed in the suit. Insofar as the

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the

preliminary decree was wrongly drawn cannot be gone into by the

Court below while drafting the final decree contrary to the preliminary

decree, is without any basis and the same is rejected.

In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality or

perversity in the impugned order warranting interference by this

Court.

The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No

order as to costs.

________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date : 17.08.2021.

va/sur