APHC010538522025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3172/2025 Between: 1. THOLICHURI PITCHAIAH, , S/O SYDULU, 38 YEARS, R/O CHAGANTIVARIPALEM VILLAGE, MUPPALLA MANDAL PALANADU DISTRICT, A.P ...PETITIONER AND 1. BORIGORLA KOATAIAH KOTESWARA RAO, S/O KRISHNAIAH, 30 YEARS, R/O CHAGANTIVARIPALEM VILLAGE, MUPPALLA MANDAL, PALANADU DISTRICT, A.P. 2. BORIGORLA NAGALAKSHMI, D/O KRISHNAIAH ALIAS KRISHNAIAH, 23 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O CHAGANTIVARIPALEM VILLAGE, MUPPALLA MANDAL, PALANADU DISTRICT, A.P. 3. BORIGORLA KRISHNAIAH ALIAS KRISHNA, R/O CHAGANTIVARIPALEM VILLAGE MUPPALLA MANDAL, PALANADU DISTRICT, A.P. 4. BORIGORLA NARAYANA, R/O CHAGANTIVARIPALEM VILLAGE, MUPPALLA MANDAL, PALANADU DISTRICT, A.P. 5. BORIGORLA RAMULAMMA ALIAS RAMULU, R/O CHAGANTIVARIPALEM VILLAGE, MUPPALLA MANDAL, PALANADU DISTRICT, A.P. 6. MUVVA RANGAMMA, R/O CHAGANTIVARIPALEM VILLAGE, MUPPALLA MANDAL, PALANADU DISTRICT, A.P. (RESPONDENT 2 RRR, J C.R.P.No.3172 of 2025 NO. 3 TO 6 NOT NECESSARY) ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.68/2018 in O.S.No.57/2007 in AS.No.54/2013 on the file of IN THE COURT OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) SATTENAPALLI PALANADU DISTRICT dated 30.04.2024 IA 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 pleased Dispense with the Filing of the Certified copy of the Order in I.A.No.68/2018 in O.S.No.57/2007 in AS.No.56/2013 on the File of IN THE COURT OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) SATTENAPALLI PALANADU DISTRICT dated 30.04.2024 IA NO: 2 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 pleased Stay all proceedings in l.A.No.68/2018 in O.S.No.57/2007 in AS.No.56/2013 on the File of IN THE COURT OF PRLCIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION):: SATTENAPALLI PALANADU DISTRICT dated 30.04.2024 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SESHAGIRI RAO ULLAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 3 RRR, J C.R.P.No.3172 of 2025 The Court made the following order: The respondents 1 & 2 moved O.S.No.57 of 2007 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, for partition of the suit schedule property against 5 defendants. The petitioner herein is the 5th defendant. The said suit was dismissed, by the Trial Court, by a Judgment and decree, dated 25.06.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents 1 & 2 had filed A.S.No.54 of 2013 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli. This appeal came to be allowed by a Judgment and decree, dated 26.10.2015 and a preliminary decree was passed. Thereafter, the respondents 1 & 2 had moved I.A.No.68 of 2018, before the Trial Court, for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to initiate final decree proceedings, by inspecting the schedule property and to come up with a plan for partition of the said property, in accordance with the preliminary decree. 2. The Trial Court, by an order, dated 30.04.2024, in I.A.No.68 of 2018, in O.S.No.57of 2007 in A.S.No.54 of 2013, had appointed an Advocate Commissioner, to take up the necessary process. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. Sri Ullam Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondents 1 & 2 had actually moved I.A.No.86 of 2018, for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and notice was served on the petitioner on that basis. However, this application appears to have been 4 RRR, J C.R.P.No.3172 of 2025 numbered as I.A.No.68 of 2018. As such, the petitioner was unable to appear before the Court to put forth his defense and objections against the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The learned counsel would also submit that the Advocate Commissioner has not taken up the task entrusted to him, despite passage of 1½ year since the date of appointment and the same is sufficient for removal of the said Advocate Commissioner and for further steps to be taken. 4. Since there is a preliminary decree in the suit, there is every necessity to complete the final decree proceedings in pursuance of such preliminary decree, unless such proceedings have been stayed by a Superior Court. No orders of any Superior Court, staying such process, have been placed before this Court. In the circumstances, the relief available in the suit would be passing a final decree after the Advocate Commissioner files his report. 5. In the present case, the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner is disputed by the petitioner on two grounds. Firstly, the order has been passed in wrong proceedings and secondly, the Advocate Commissioner has not taken any steps and as such there are sufficient grounds to remove the Advocate Commissioner. 6. As far as the first ground is concerned, this Court does not deem it appropriate to accept the contention that mere typographical errors in the numbering of the application is sufficient to non-suit the petitioners therein. It 5 RRR, J C.R.P.No.3172 of 2025 is also pertinent to mention that the learned counsel for the petitioner would not state as to whether there was I.A.No.68 of 2018 in this case at all. 7. On the question of learned Advocate Commissioner not executing his warrant, the petitioner would have every right to raise these issues before the Trial Court and seek return of the warrant and for such other steps as the petitioner herein would deem appropriate. 8. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Civil Revision Petition is closed, leaving it open to the petitioner to move such application as are necessary to ensure that a proper person is appointed as Advocate Commissioner and appropriate steps are taken, in accordance with the preliminary decree so that a final decree can be passed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J 21.11.2025 MJA 6 RRR, J C.R.P.No.3172 of 2025 110 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3172/2025 21.11.2025 MJA