THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1510 OF 2011 Dated:20.09.2011 Between: Chittabathina Naveen .. Petitioner And Chittabathina Venkateswarlu and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1510 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is the son of the second respondent who is none other than the brother of the first respondent. The suit being O.S.No.142 of 2003 filed by the first respondent for partition was decreed on 10.11.2009 and a preliminary decree was passed dividing the suit schedule property into two shares and allotting one such share to respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner herein who is the second defendant in the suit claimed exclusive right over the suit schedule house under Ex.B6 - Will executed by his grandmother. The plea was not accepted and the preliminary decree also covers the said house. Be that as it is, aggrieved by the preliminary decree, the petitioner and his father filed A.S.No.10 of 2010 and sought stay of proceedings in the lower Court. By an order dated 26.08.2010, the Court of the V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Rajahmundry, dismissed the said application observing that the appointment of an advocate commissioner, division of property and submission of report may go on, but final decree should not be passed. Thereafter, the first respondent filed I.A.No.512 of 2010 for appointment of an advocate commissioner. By an order dated 02.08.2010, the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, appointed an advocate commissioner to partition the decree schedule property as per the terms. Aggrieved by the same, the instant Civil Revision Petition is filed. The only submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner is a party to the suit and though he has filed A.S.No.10 of 2010 along with his father against the preliminary decree including the denial of his claim in so far as the suit house is concerned, the first respondent did not implead him in I.A.No.512 of 2010. According to him, the trial Court ought not to have appointed the advocate commissioner without hearing the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner herein who has set up an independent suit schedule house did not seek any stay of the decree in so far as the said house is concerned. Therefore, when there was no relief granted to him in preliminary decree, no prejudice would be caused even if he is not impleaded in I.A.No.512 of 2010 in which advocate commissioner is appointed. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, he can approach the appellate Court seeking redressal. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 20.09.2011 KH