IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Civil Revision Petition No : 5639 of 2009 Between: Surwat Yasmin ..... PETITIONER AND Sujawooddin Shakkel Siddiqui and others. .....RESPONDENTS Order: This civil revision petition is directed against the docket order, dated 06.11.2009, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, in I.A.No.981 of 2009 in O.S.No.91 of 2009. The petitioner-plaintiff filed O.S.No.91 of 2009 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad under Order VII Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 26 CPC seeking partition and separate possession. The respondents filed written statement in the suit. The trial Court, through its order, dated 03.08.2009, has also passed preliminary decree in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. Thereafter, the respondents have filed the present application, being I.A.No.981 of 2009, under Order XX Rule 18 of CPC, to pass final decree in their favour and for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to divide the suit schedule property into six equal shares. The trial Court has appointed one Sri M.Maheswar, Advocate, as Commissioner to verify the suit schedule property for being partitioned between the parties and to submit a report. Thereafter, the Advocate Commissioner filed a Memo into the Court on 03.09.2009 stating that the suit schedule property consists of only five rooms and therefore, it is not possible to divide the same into six shares and suggested to put the suit schedule property to public auction and apportion the sale proceeds among the parties. Upon considering the Memo filed by the Advocate Commissioner and upon hearing the learned counsel on either side, including the parties, the trial Court through the impugned order directed the Advocate Commissioner to put the suit schedule property to public auction. The relevant para runs as under: “According to the commissioner’s opinion and also according to the opinion of the parties the property is consisting of five rooms only and it has to be divided into six shares, therefore it is the property undivisible. Under these circumstances, the Advocate Commissioner is directed to put the property in auction and deposit sale proceeds in the Court for the payment to the parties according to their shares. His fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/- tentatively. Defendants are directed to deposit the amount before this Court by 09.11.2009. Issue orders accordingly. Call on 09.11.2009.” Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-plaintiff filed the present civil revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the contentions that were advanced before the trial Court and sought to set aside the impugned order. On the other hand, Sri P.Laxma Reddy, who filed caveat for the respondents, sought to sustain the impugned order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The trial Court, having taken into consideration the Memo filed by the Advocate Commissioner, who reported that the suit schedule property is undivisible into six shares, and having heard the learned counsel on either side, passed the impugned order directing the Advocate Commissioner to put the suit schedule property to public auction and to deposit the sale proceeds into the Court for being apportioned among the parties. This Court discerns no infirmity whatsoever warranting interference with the same while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The civil revision petition is devoid of merit and is therefore dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:01.12.2009 VGB