THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.953 of 2008 Dated:04th December, 2009 Between: S.Ramesh Gowd @ Ramesh ..... Petitioner AND 1. Patil Veerabhadra Gowd & Ors. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.953 of 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 06.11.2007 passed in I.A.No.341 of 2007 in O.S.No.3 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the application of the plaintiffs filed under Order 39, Rule 7 and under Sec.151 CPC and appointed a Commissioner to auction the leasehold rights of the suit schedule property between the parties for every year before the end of 31st March. 2. Background facts in a nutshell leading to filing of this revision by the petitioner are: The respondents are the plaintiffs and the petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.3 of 2007. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and recovery of possession in respect of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.341 of 2007 under order 39, Rule 7 and under Section 151 CPC seeking appointment of a Commissioner to auction the leasehold rights in respect of the suit schedule property between the parties for the year 2007-08. The plaintiffs marked 28 documents on their behalf and whereas the defendant marked one document on his behalf in support of their respective contentions. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on appreciation of the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to allow the application and appointed an Advocate Commissioner to auction the leasehold rights of the suit schedule property between the parties for the year 2007-08, by order dated 06.11.2007. The said order is assailed in this revision. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant and learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant submits that the suit schedule property has been in occupation of the family of the petitioner/defendant for over a century and appointing the Commissioner to auction the leasehold rights between the parties at this distance of time causes much prejudice to the rights of the petitioner/defendant. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs supported the order impugned in the revision. 6. A fact remains that the petitioner/defendant has been in possession of the suit schedule property. Indeed one of the reliefs sought for by the respondents/plaintiffs in the suit is recovery of possession. There is no averment in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.341 of 2007 that the defendant is causing damage to the property or he is trying to alter the nature of the property. When the petitioner/defendant has been in occupation of the property for over a considerable period, appointing the Commissioner to auction the leasehold rights pending the suit is wholly unwarranted. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 06.11.2007 passed in I.A.No.341 of 2007 in O.S.No.3 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, is set aside and consequently, I.A.No.341 of 2007 stands dismissed. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:04th December, 2009. Cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.953 of 2008 Dated:04th December, 2009