HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4039 of 2009 Between: Kurakula Satyavathi and another. ……….Petitioner and Adabala Chinnammi and 8 others. ………..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY C.R.P. No.4039 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 08-04-2009 delivered in I.A.No.44 of 2009 in F.D.I.A.No.205 of 2003 in O.S.No.32 of 1995, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, wherein, the said petition filed by the 1st respondent herein under Order 26 Rule 12 CPC for redirection to the advocate commissioner to assess the mesne profits was allowed and the advocate commissioner was redirected to ascertain the mesne profits in respect of A, B and E schedule properties. 2. The plaintiff, who is the 1st respondent herein, filed the suit in O.S.No.32 of 1995 for partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule properties and for ascertainment of mesne profits. A preliminary decree was passed directing partition of A, B and E schedule properties into two equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff-1st respondent. The plaintiff-1st respondent field I.A.No.275 of 2003 in O.S.No.32 of 1995, for passing of final decree. For effecting partition and separate possession in pursuance of the preliminary decree, and advocate-commissioner was appointed in the said I.A. and after execution of the warrant, the advocate- commissioner filed a report effecting partition of the plaint A, B and E schedule properties as per the preliminary decree. In the said I.A.No.275 of 2003, the plaintiff-1st respondent has prayed for ascertainment of mesne profits also. The warrant entrusted to the advocate- commissioner was silent regarding the same. Learned Senior Civil Judge, in the impugned order, observed that it may be by mistake the direction for ascertainment of mesne profits was not mentioned in the commissioner’s warrant. When the preliminary decree was passed granting the relief of ascertainment of mesne profits also, it is open for the plaintiff-1st respondent to file a separate application for the said purpose. Simply because in the warrant issued to the Commissioner for effecting partition, no reference is made to the ascertainment of mesne profits, the plaintiff-1st respondent cannot be precluded from claiming the said relief by way of separate application especially when the said relief was granted under the preliminary decree. 3. It is not disputed by the petitioners that the preliminary decree contains direction for payment of mesne profits also and the impugned order also shows that such a direction was made in the preliminary decree. As there is omission in the warrant issued to the advocate-commissioner earlier regarding ascertainment of mesne profits, a separate application was filed by the plaintiff-1st respondent in I.A.No.44 of 2009 for the said purpose and the same was rightly allowed by the trial Court redirecting the same advocate-commissioner to ascertain the mesne profits also. 4. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Thus, absolutely there is no merit in the revision petition. 5. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ 24th September 2009 kvr