THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3658 OF 2009 Dated 16th July, 2010 Between: Pinjari Saibamma and two others …Petitioners And Pinjari Malakamma and two others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Sri K.Maheswar Rao The Court made the following ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 20.04.2009 in I.A.No.369 of 2008 in I.A.No.666 of 2006 in O.S.No.40 of 1995 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni. I have heard Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri K.Maheswar Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.40 of 1995 filed by the respondents. In the said suit filed for partition, a preliminary decree was passed. In the final decree proceedings, on the application filed by the respondents, an Advocate-Commissioner was appointed in the year 2006. The Advocate-Commissioner filed a report suggesting the method of partition. Obviously not satisfied with the report of the Advocate-Commissioner, the petitioners filed I.A.No.369 of 2008 to appoint another Advocate-Commissioner in the place of the Advocate-Commissioner, who has already submitted his report. The said application was disposed of by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, with the observation that the petitioners herein are at liberty to exercise their option at the time of drawing of lots at the final decree proceedings. In my opinion, the very application itself filed by the petitioners is not maintainable because if the petitioners felt aggrieved by the report, they are entitled to file objections. Unless the Court below accepts the objections of the petitioners and the report is set aside, the application for appointment of another Advocate- Commissioner cannot be maintained. At any rate, in the light of the observation made by the Court below giving liberty to the petitioners to exercise their option at the time of drawing of their lots, no interference is called for with the order passed by the Court below. For the abovementioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, CRPMP No.5052 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 16th July, 2010 vrn