IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 431 OF 2025 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 set aside the order dated 27-09-2024, passed in F.D.P. 14 of 2021 in I.A.No.110/2021 in O.S.No.186 of 1994 on the file of III Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada by allowing the revision petition. Between: Yenduri Sri Ramalingeswara Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, aged 34 years. Resident of D.N0.26-4-6/B, Gnanolive street, 0pp. Sri City Hotel, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada. ....PETITIONER/5''’ RESPONDENT AND 1. Yenduri Keerthi, wife of G.M.Vishnu Manjunath D/o. Yenduri Subba Rao, aged about 38 years, R/o. apple Bloosom Apartment, 201, Employees Colony, Puppalaguda Church, Baptist, Manikonda, Hyderabad, (petitioner) 2. Yenduri Subba Rao, S/o. Radhakrishna Murthy, aged about 72 years, R/o. D.N0.26-4-6/B, Gnanolive street, 0pp. Sri City Hotel, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada. (1®'respondent). 3. Yenduri Koteswara Rao, S/o. Radhakrishna Murthy, aged about 68 years, R/o. D.No.26-4-6/B, Gnanolive street, 0pp. Sri City Hotel, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada. 4. Yenduri Radhakrishna Murthy (died) 5. A.K.Eswari W/o. Rambabu, aged 80 years, R/o. D.No.23-17-9- Gadiyaramvari Street, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada-11. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 order the stay of all further proceedings in F.D.P.No.14 of 2021 in IA.No.110 of 2021 in O.S.No.186 /1994 on the file of III Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada, pending disposal of above CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KVSD RAVI TEJA Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: 1 (RNT,J CRP.No.421 of 2025) APHC010557772024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 431/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Yenduri Sri Ramalingeswara Rao AND Yenduri Keerthi ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KVSD RAVI TEJA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri K.V.S.D.Ravi Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is the 2'^ plaintiff in O.S.No.186 of 1994 on the file of 2. the III Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada, filed for partition of the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. 2 (RNT,J CRP.No.421 of 2025) The learned Court passed a preliminary decree on 27.04.2001. The 1®* respondent was the 1®‘ plaintiff and the remaining respondents were the defendants. 3. The 1®' plaintiff filed F.D.P.14 of 2021 in I.A.No.110 of 2021 in 4. O.S.No.186 of 1994 seeking the appointment of an advocate-commis sioner to divide the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties as per the preliminary decree dated 27.04.2001, and the same was allowed by order dated 27.09.2024. Challenging the order dated 27.09.2024, the present Civil 5. Revision Petition has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the preliminary decree, the parties partitioned their properties through two registered partition deeds dated 19.06.2007 and 21.06.2007. His submission is that the partition was mutually agreed and was acted upon through the registered partition deeds. The parties also derived benefits from the said partition. Therefore, the 1®‘ plaintiff was estopped from filing the application for a Final Decree. He argues that while passing the impugned order, the learned Court failed to consider objections so raised and proceeded to appoint an advocate-commissioner to submit a report regarding the division of the plaint schedule properties. 7. I have considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 3 (RNT,J CRP.No.421 of 2025) A perusal of paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of the impugned order shows that the contentions of the petitioner herein (2"^ plaintiff) to the effect of partition deeds were noted by the learned Court. It is further evident from the order that the learned Court has neither passed a final order nor a final decree. Only an advocate-commissioner has been appointed to submit a report. 8. 9. After the advocate-commissioner files the report, the petitioner will certainly have an opportunity to file objections against such report, as also to make his submissions regarding the alleged registered partition deeds. Since F.D.P. No. 14 of 2021 in I.A. No. 110 of 2021 for preparation of the Final decree, is pending before the learned Court, it is not the stage to consider about the alleged partition deeds, at the time of issue of advocate- commissioner to submit the report for proceedings in Final decree proceedings. Whether in view of such partition deeds, any Final decree is required to be passed or as per the partition deeds or differently in consonance with the preliminary decree, all such matters if so raised can be considered at the time of the proceedings for Final decree. 10. Since, the proceedings for the Final decree are pending before the learned Court, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4 (RNT,J CRP.No.421 of 2025) 11. The Civil Revision Petition lacks merits and is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. Sd/- A. VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1. The III Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada 2. One CC to SRI KVSD RAVI TEJA, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies Pmg Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:30/01/2025 ORDER CRP.No.431 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRP