Poojari Bhuvaneshwara Reddy Vs Poojari Sidda Reddy

POOJARI BHUVANESHWARA REDDY, S/O P.MUNIRATHNAM REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, RESIDING AT SAMIREDDIPALLE VILLAGE, PAKALA POST AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶13

...PETITIONER

¶14

AND

¶15

POOJARI SIDDA REDDY, S/O.P.SREENIVASULU REDDY R/O.DOOR NO.13-6-600/44/157, PEDDAKAPU LAYOUT, TIRUPATI TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶16

POOJARI RAJESWAR REDDY, S/O.P. SREENIVASULU REDDY, HINDU, CULTIVATION, RESIDING AT SAMIREDDIPALLE VILLAGE, PAKALA POST AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶17

SMT R PADMA, W/O. P. SIDDA REDDY, RESIDING AT D.NO 13-6600144/157, PEDDAKAPU LAYOUT, TIRUPATI TOWN AND CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶18

SMT RANI, W/O.P. CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY, RESIDING AT D.NO.13-7-914/B, OLD POST OFFICE STREET, KORLAGUNTA, TIRUPATI TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶19

POOJARI MUNI REDDY, (DIED)

¶20

Page 2 of 6

¶21

POOJARI MUNIRATHNAM REDDY, S/O P.SREENIVASULU REDDY RESIDING AT SAMIREDDIPALLE VILLAGE, PAKALA POST AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶22

POOJARI CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY, (DIED)

¶23

SMT A RADHIKA BUJJI, D/O.P. CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY, RESIDING AT D.NO.13-7-914/B, OLD POST OFFICE STREET, KORLAGUNTA, TIRUPATI TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶24

SMT HEMALATHA CHINNI, D/O. P. CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY RESIDING AT D.NO.13-7-914/B, OLD POST OFFICE STREET, KORLAGUNTA, TIRUPATI TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶25

P SREENIVASULU REDDY SCENU, S/O. P. CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY, RESIDING AT D.NO.13-7-914/B, OLD POST OFFICE STREET, KORLAGUNTA, TIRUPATI TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶26

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶27

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition against the Docket Order dated 20.12.2022 passed in I.A.No.07 of 2020 in O.S.No.12 of 2009, on the file of the VIII Additional District Judge's Court, Chittoor,

¶28

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶29

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to CONDONE the delay of 84 days in filing the CRP against the order dated 20.12.2022 passed in IA.No.07 of 2020 in O.S.No.12 of 2009, on the file of VIII Additional District Judge's Court, Chittoor in the interest of justice and pass

¶30

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶31

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY all further proceedings in pursuant to the order dated 20.12.2022 passed in IA.No.07 of 2020 in O.S.No.12 of 2009, on the file of VIII Additional District Judge's Court, Chittoor in the interest of justice and pass

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

1.T V S KUMAR

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶36

¶37

The Court made the following order:

¶38

Heard Sri T.V.S.Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

¶39

The 3^rd plaintiff in the suit, being the 3^rd respondent in IA.No.07 of 2020 in O.S.No.12 of 2009, dated 20.12.2022, on the file of the VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor, filed the above revision challenging the order dated 20.12.2022.

¶40

One Sri P.Muni Reddy and others filed O.S.No.12 of 2009 against the defendants seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties. The petitioner was impleaded as the 3^rd plaintiff as per the order dated 18.11.2015 in C.R.P.No.4924 of 2014. A preliminary decree was passed on 10.12.2018 in O.S.No.12 of 2009. The revision petitioner, the 3^rd plaintiff, filed an appeal under Section 96 C.P.C, and the same is pending. The defendants 1 and 3 to 5 filed I.A.No.07 of 2020 under Order XX Rule 18 C.P.C to pass a final decree by appointing an Advocate Commissioner for division of the plaint “A” schedule properties and item Nos.10 to 12 of the plaint “B” Schedule properties in terms of the preliminary decree. By the order, the trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner.

¶41

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the revision petitioner filed a regular appeal, and the same is pending before this Court. Pending the appeal, the trial Court should not have appointed an Advocate Commissioner.

¶42

Page 4 of 6

¶43

5. The point for consideration is:

¶44

Whether the order dated 20.12.2022 in IA.No.07 of 2020 in O.S.No.12 of 2009, on the file of the VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor, suffers from any illegality?

¶45

Shorn of unnecessary details, there is no dispute regarding O.S.No.12 of 2009 filed for partition and passing of the preliminary decree dated 10.12.2018. It is also undisputed, as seen from the papers filed along with the C.R.P., that the 3^rd plaintiff in the suit filed an appeal, and the same is pending. Pursuant to the preliminary decree, the defendants 1 and 3 to 5 filed an interlocutory application under Order XX Rule 18 C.P.C. seeking to pass a final decree by appointing an Advocate Commissioner and directing the Advocate Commissioner to file a report.

¶46

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that so far, the Commissioner has not executed the warrant.

¶47

It is a settled practice that whenever an appeal is filed against a preliminary decree in a suit for partition, the appellate Court grants a stay of the passing of the final decree alone and further directs the trial Court to proceed further. In the case at hand, pending the appeal, the trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner. Even according to the counsel, the learned advocate has not executed the warrant so far. Appointing an advocate commissioner aligns with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.

¶48

Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court doesn’t find any illegality or irregularity in the order dated 20.12.2022 in IA.No.07 of 2020 in O.S.No.12 of 2009, on the file of the VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor, warranting interference. Hence, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶49