1 APHC010579662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2920/2025 Between: 1. KOMMALAPATI GAUTAM,, S/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNA, AGED 15 YEARS, BEING MINOR REP. BY HIS MOTHER/NEXT FRIEND/GUARDIAN KOMMALAPATI (SAVILI) SABITHA, R/O. FLAT NO.202, DOOR NO. 7-1-621/237, H.NO. 135/2 RT, SAI NIVAS APARTMENT, SR NAGAR, HYDERABAD -38. 2. KOMMALAPATI (SAVILI) SABITHA,, W/O. RAMA KRISHNA, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO.202, DOOR NO. 7-1-621/237, H.NO. 135/2 RT, SAI NIVAS APARTMENT, SR NAGAR, HYDERABAD -38. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. KOMMALAPATI RAMA KRISHNA, (DIED) 2. KOMMALAPATI RAJESWARI, W/O. GOPALA RAO, AGED 72 YEARS, R/O. GARLAPADU VILLAGE, KAKUMANU MANDAL,GUNTUR DISTRICT. NOW RESIDING AT R/O. FLAT NO.401, RAMESH GRAND, 2ND LANE, RAJENDRA NAGAR, GUNTUR CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. JASTHI MANASA KRISHNA, W/O. PRASAD, AGED 50 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO. 401, RAMESH GRAND, 2ND LANE, RAJENDRA NAGAR, GUNTUR CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...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 2 pleased toBeing aggrieved by the non-disposal of Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 604 of 2023 in O.S. No. 382 of 2014 on the file of the court of Learned II Addl. District Judge, Guntur, the above-named petitioners prefer the present memorandum of Civil Revision Petition for the following among other Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. DEVI PRASAD MANGALAPURI 2. 3 The Court made the following Order: The 1st petitioner herein had initially filed O.S.No.382 of 2014, before the II Additional District Judge, Guntur, for seeking partition of the property which belonged to his father, who was arrayed as defendant No.1 in the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant passed away. Thereafter, the 2nd petitioner, who is the wife of the 1st defendant and mother of the 1st petitioner, was added as 2nd plaintiff. Similarly, the mother and sister of the deceased 1st defendant were added as defendants 2 and 3. The contention in the suit was that the plaint schedule properties, which were to be partitioned, were ancestral properties of the 1st defendant family and that the petitioners would have a right over the said property which requires to be adjudicated. The II Additional District Judge passed a preliminary decree adjudging the claims of the petitioners as well as the respondents, by way of a decree, dated 04.07.2022. 2. The respondents, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, had filed A.S.No.232 of 20202, before this Court. By an order, dated 26.09.2022, a Division Bench of this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2022 had directed that further proceedings may go on but final decree should not be passed. Thereafter, an application was moved, by way of I.A.No.604 of 2023, for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, to take up further proceedings. 3. The petitioners have now approached this Court, by way of the present Civil Revision Petition, with the complaint that the said application has 4 remained pending and no orders have been passed by the trial Court, for appointing an Advocate Commissioner. 4. The respondents have filed a counter in which it is stated that O.S.No.147 of 2024 had been filed by the maternal aunts of the deceased 1st defendant contending that they also have a share in the property inasmuch as they are the daughters of late Sri K. Kotaiah and late Smt. Naga Ratnamma, who was the original owner of the property from whom all the litigants, herein are claiming title. The respondents contend that in view of the said suit, there can be no ascertainment of the rights of the parties to O.S.No.382 of 2014, inasmuch as any declaration of title in favour of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.147 of 2024, would run counter to the decision and findings in O.S.No.382 of 2014. 5. A perusal of O.S.No.147 of 2024 as well as O.S.No.382 of 2014 would show that originally Late Sri Kotaiah who was married Late Smt. Naga Ratnamma is said to be the owner of the properties under dispute. Late Sri Kotaiah had two daughters and one son. His son Gopala Rao was married to the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.382 of 2014 and their children are the 1st defendant and the 3rd defendant, who is a daughter. 6. In O.S.No.147 of 2024, the two daughters of Late Sri Kotaiah claim 1/3rd share each in the properties in question, while in O.S.No.382 of 2014 the family members of the 1st defendant, who is the grandson of Late Sri K. Kotaiah claim ownership over most of the property and seek partition of the property. 5 7. Though, there is an inherent contradiction in these claims, the fact remains that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.147 of 2024, are clearly aware of the filing of O.S.No.382 of 2014 and did not chose to implead themselves in the said suit. Instead, they moved O.S.No.147 of 2024, for partition of the very same property. (There are certain variations in the details of the property set out in Schedule-II in O.S.No.382 of 2014 and the schedule in O.S.No.147 of 2024). 8. In the circumstances, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.147 of 2024 having taken up an independent path of ascertaining their title, the said suit cannot be the basis on which, the further proceedings of appointment of an Advocate Commissioner can be stalled in O.S.No.382 of 2014. 9. The pendency of O.S.No.147 of 2024, cannot therefore be a ground to delay the appointment of an advocate Commissioner in O.S.No.382 of 2014. Further, there is a stay on the passing of any final decree and any steps taken by the learned Advocate Commissioner, who would be appointed, would only be to the extent of undertaking a provisional exercise of partition, on paper. 10. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate that an Advocate Commissioner is appointed in the matter at the earliest. 11. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed with a direction to the II Additional District Judge, Guntur to dispose of I.A.No.604 of 2023 6 expeditiously, and take necessary steps for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, at the earliest, and preferably within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J RJS 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2920/2025 30.01.2026 RJS