IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1361 of 2009 Between: Veeramachineni Venkateswara Rao and another ..... PETITIONERS AND Smt.Moturi Padmavathi and 2 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1361 of 2009 O R D E R: Petitioners are Defendants Nos.1 and 4 in the suit filed by the 1st respondent herein in O.S.57/2005 on the file of the VII Addl.District Judge (Fast Track Court) Visakhapatnam for partition. It is stated that the 1st respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.785/2007 in the said suit for appointment of Advocate-Commissioner for the purposes of recording cross-examination and to mark the documents of the plaintiff on the ground that she was not feeling well and unable to attend the Court personally. The said application was allowed by the Court below by order dated 18.09.2007, against which the petitioners herein filed CRP.4469/2007 and this Court by order dated 08.02.2008 allowed the said CRP setting aside the order dated 18.09.2007 made in I.A.785/2007 remitting the matter back to the Court below to pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of being heard to both parties, as the Court below has not passed the reasoned order. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioners filed a detailed counter. On 24.04.2008 the Court below taken up hearing of the above petition, and as there was no representation on behalf of both the parties, the Court below allowed the application for appointment of the Advocate- Commissioner. As it was an ex parte order, petitioners filed an application to restore the same, but the said application was rejected on the ground that a detailed order was passed on 24.04.2008. Aggrieved by the same, this civil revision petition is filed, contending that admittedly, the impugned order is an ex parte order without hearing both the parties. In view of the earlier orders passed by this Court in CRP.4469/2007 dated 08.02.2008, there is a specific direction to the Court below to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the parties, and pass a reasoned order. But the Court below again passed similar ex parte order. Therefore, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below to consider and dispose of the same, as ordered by this Court in CRP.4469/2007 dated 08.02.2008. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 11.03.2011 Dsr