THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI Civil Revision Petition No. 980 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2009 made in IA No. 1077 of 2008 in O.S. No. 419 of 2004, on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, in accepting the report of the Advocate-Commissioner for ascertainment of mesne profits and for division of the properties between the co-sharers. The revision petitioner herein is the respondent and the respondents herein are the petitioners before the court below. The respondents herein filed I.A. No. 1077 of 2008 in O.S. No. 419 of 2004, under order 20 Rule 12 C.P.C for appointment of an advocate commissioner for the purpose of making enquiry in ascertaining mesne profits in respect of schedule 1 and 2 properties of the decree and to divide the same between the co-sharers. The court below appointed an advocate-commissioner for the said purpose and the said commissioner filed his report and it was accepted by the court. Aggrieved against the same, the present civil revision petition is filed. Heard and perused the order under revision. The order under revision reveals that an advocate-commissioner was appointed to ascertain mesne profits in respect of schedule 1 and 2 properties of the decree in O.S.No. 419 of 2004 and to divide the same between the co- sharers and that the said commissioner filed his report on 29-9-2008 and thereafter objections filed by parties were also considered by him by virtue of the court orders and he filed a fresh report on 27-7-2009. The order further reveals that the main objection raised by the respondent therein was that there is a road-widening proposal and if the same is done, he will be put to loss and as such he sought a direction to the commissioner to enquire into on that aspect and to file a fresh report. The record reveals that though an objection was raised before the Commissioner by the respondent therein, yet, no material was placed before the Commissioner to consider the same and therefore the court below rejected the said objection, accepted the report of the commissioner and adjourned the matter to proceed further in accordance with law as the parties did not turn up for amicable settlement. In view of the cogent reasons assigned by the court below, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed. However, it would suffice if a direction is given to the court below to dispose of the above I.A No.1077/2008, if not already disposed of. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to dispose of the I.A. No. 1077 of 2008 in O.S. No. 419 of 2004, if not already disposed of, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _____________________________ dt.23-03-2010 JUSTICE T MEENA KUMARI kvrk THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI Civil Revision Petition No. 980 of 2010 23-03-2010