THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5170 of 2009 (Dated : 03.12.2009) Between: Chowdavarapu Purnachandar Rao, Kaman Bazar, Khammam Town, Khammam District …Petitioner- plaintiff A n d Chowadavarapu Krishna Murthy Kaman Bazar, Khammam District. …Respondent- Defendant No.2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5170 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 9.9.2009 passed in I.A.No.786 of 2002 in O.S.No.65 of 1978 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, whereby and whereunder, the learned Senior Civil Judge ordered for issuance of proclamation for sale of items 2 and 4 of `A’ schedule and item No.4 of `B’ schedule of the petition schedule property by 6.11.2009. 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and whereas the respondent is defendant No.2 in O.S.No.65 of 1978. The petitioner-plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit schedule property. A preliminary decree has been passed. Thereafter, respondent-defendant No.2 filed final decree petition being I.A.No.786 of 2002. A commissioner was appointed to make division of the suit schedule property. It appears the Commissioner filed report stating that item Nos.2 and 4 of `A’ schedule and item No.4 of `B’ schedule are not practicable for division, and therefore, he proposed for sale of the said items and division of the sale proceeds to the parties as per their respective shares. An order came to be passed on 13.10.2003 in I.A.No.786 of 2002 whereby and whereunder, the proposal of the Commissioner came to be accepted. The learned Senior Civil Judge ordered for issuance of proclamation for sale of items 2 and 4 of `A’ schedule and item No.4 of `B’ schedule, by order dated 9.9.2009. I deem it appropriate to refer the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge dated 9.9.2009, which reads as hereunder: “ Petitioner counsel filed market value certificates along with E.Cs for items No.2 and 4 of A schedule and Item No.4 of B schedule. Issue proclamation for sale of items 2 and 4 of A schedule and item No.4 of B schedule by 6.11.09. Punish in Eenadu daily, Khammam District special. Petitioner-D.2 has to pay the process for proclamation and to bear the publication charges. Call on 6.11.09.” 3. The order dated 9.9.2009 passed in I.A.No.786 of 2002 is assailed in this revision. 4. The revision came to be admitted on 5.11.2009. The respondent- defendant No.2 received notice and entered appearance through a counsel. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that there are other items, which are yet to be partitioned and that before effecting partition of other items, putting items 2 and 4 of `A’ schedule and item No.4 of `B’ schedule to auction causes much prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-2nd defendant submits that the Commissioner inspected the suit schedule property and submitted report stating that division of items 2 and 4 of `A’ schedule and item No.4 of `B’ schedule is impracticable, and suggested for sale of the said items and distribution of the sale proceeds. The learned Senior Civil Judge considered the Commissioner’s report and accepted the proposal of the Commissioner, by order dated 13.10.2003. A further submission has been made that the petitioner did not choose to challenge the order dated 13.10.2003 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge in I.A.No.786 of 2002. 8. The factual aspect of the learned Senior Civil Judge accepting the Commissioner’s report and ordering proclamation for sale of items 2 and 4 of `A’ schedule and item No.4 of `B’ schedule is not contradicted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. As long as the order dated 13.10.2003 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge is in force, the petitioner cannot have any objection for proclamation of sale of items 2 and 4 of `A’ schedule and item No.4 of `B’ schedule. Hence, I find that the order impugned in this revision does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.03.12.2009 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5170 of 2009 (Dated : 03.12.2009)