HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY C.R.P. No. 4056 of 2009 DATED: 05.02.2010 Between: Koppu Venkata Murali Mohana Rao and 28 others ..Petitioners/ defendants And Koppu Guranna and two others .. Respondents/ Plaintiffs JUDGMENT:- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Docket Order dated 10.06.2009 passed in I .A. No.410 of 2009 in O.S. No.9 of 2006 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram wherein the application filed by the defendants under Section 151 CPC to permit them to sell item Nos.8 and 9 of B2 schedule and C2 schedule properties for meeting their personal and business needs, was dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records. The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No.9 of 2006. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein filed the suit for partition of plaint schedule properties and other reliefs. The plaint schedules comprise number of items of properties. It is not disputed that by way of interim order, the defendants were restrained from alienating the plaint schedule properties and that order has been complied with. The defendants filed I.A. No.410 of 2009 seeking permission to sell three items i.e. Item Nos.8 and 9 of B2 schedule, which are house properties situated in Visakhapatnam, and the property of C2 schedule which is vacant site situated in Visakhapatnam and falling in the properties belonging to the petitioners/defendants, on the ground that they are required to be sold for meeting educational and marriage expenses of their children and for other business purposes. The learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants has contended that the respondents-plaintiffs have only 1/12th share and all the remaining sharers, who are living together, are seeking to dispose off only three items of the properties in question for the purpose of meeting the legal necessities and for the benefit of their family. The learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs has opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants. The impugned order discloses that the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, while dismissing the petition, thought it fit to direct the parties to proceed with the trial of the suit instead of passing an order on merits. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the conclusion of the trial will take considerable time even if the matter is taken up expeditiously having regard to the hugeness of the properties involved and the issues arising out of the pleadings, and therefore, it is just and expedient to pass appropriate orders on merits in the present application. In the circumstances, inasmuch as the impugned order is not passed on merits, but merely directs the parties to proceed with the suit, it is considered fit and proper to remit the matter to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram and direct him to pass appropriate orders on merits in I.A. No.410 of 2009, in accordance with law. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J 5th February, 2010 bcj