APHC010234882025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1503/2025 Between: Surla Ramu ...PETITIONER AND Yedla Nagarathnam and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J M NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI 2. POTHALA GOWTHAM The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Respondents 1 and 2 had filed O.S.No.183 of 1984 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anakapalle for partition of the suit 2 schedule property. The said property consisting of 24.71 cents of land is situated in Vangali Village in the erstwhile Sabbavaram Taluk, Visakhapatnam District. A preliminary decree came to be delivered, in this suit, on 16.08.1985. Under this preliminary decree, the plaint schedule property was to be partitioned into five shares, out of which, two shares would be given to the plaintiffs in the suit and the three defendants would be given one share each out of the remaining three shares. The preliminary decree also stated that past and future profits would be determined in a separate application. 2. It appears that respondents 1 and 2 moved I.A.No.307 of 2012 for passing of final decree in terms of the preliminary decree, dated 16.08.1985. In the course of hearing of this application, respondents 1 and 2 again moved I.A.No.86 of 2017, for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, for the purposes of partition of the plaint schedule properties for ascertaining past and future profits in terms of the preliminary decree, dated 16.08.1985. This application came to be disposed of by the trial Court, by an order dated 08.04.2024, appointing an Advocate Commissioner for partition of the plaint schedule property and also for ascertaining past and future profits in terms of the preliminary decree. 3 3. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner who is arrayed as defendant No.11 in the suit being the L.R of the deceased 2nd respondent, has approached this Court, by way of the present Civil Revision Petition. 4. Sri J.M. Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the order of the trial Court requires to be set aside as the said order is barred by principles of res judicata as well as the fact that the order could not have been passed by the trial Court, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, to present his case relating to ascertainment of past and future mesne profits. The learned counsel would also contend that the preliminary decree required the plaintiffs therein to move a separate application for ascertainment of mesne profits, whereas the plaintiff had moved an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for ascertaining the mesne profits as well as partition of the property and such an application is not permissible. 5. Heard Sri J.M. Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to an order, dated 30.03.1990, in I.A.No.292 of 1986 in O.S.No.183 of 1984, wherein an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for partition and for ascertainment of mesne 4 profits had been dismissed. He would contend that dismissal of such application would bar any future application being filed. 7. A perusal of the order, dated 30.03.1990, would show that the earlier application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was dismissed for default. In such a situation, the said order of dismissal would not in any manner bar a fresh application being filed. 8. The preliminary decree stipulated that a separate application would have to be moved for ascertaining past and future profits. This would not mean that no application can be moved for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to assist the Court for determination of past and future profits. 9. The petitioner also has an objection for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for this purpose on the ground that the petitioner would not have an opportunity to set out his objections/contentions in relation to determination of mesne profits. This objection also does not appear to be well placed. It is obvious that the Advocate Commissioner can go about determination of mesne profits only after giving an opportunity to both the petitioner herein as well as all the other parties to the suit for setting out their claims/objections and it would be subject to the orders of the trial Court inasmuch as the report of the Advocate Commissioner would only be the starting point for the Court to arrive at a 5 conclusion as to the mesne profits that have arisen from the suit schedule property. 10. In addition to these contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the preliminary decree had been passed on 16.08.1985, whereas the application for passing final decree was filed only in the year 2012 and the same is beyond limitation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan and Another vs. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan and Ors.,1 had held that final decree proceedings can be initiated at any point of time and there is no limitation for initiating final decree proceedings. This view is expressed in paragraph No.33 in the following terms: 33. Final decree proceedings can be initiated at any point of time. There is no limitation for initiating final decree proceedings. Either of the parties to the suit can move an application for preparation of a final decree and, any of the defendants can also move application for the purpose. By mere passing of a preliminary decree the suit is not disposed of. 11. It may also be noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had also held that where there is inordinate delay in passing of final decree, after the preliminary decree is obtained, it would also be open for the Court to take up drawing up for final decree proceedings suo motu to ensure that there is no delay in passing of the final decree. In that view of 1 (2022) 16 SCC 71 6 the matter, the contention of the petitioner that the filing of an application for final decree in 2012 is barred by limitation cannot be accepted. 12. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the trial Court, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J RJS 7 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1503 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Dt: 18.07.2025 RJS