THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3407 of 2009 Dated:08.10.2009 Between: Garapati Lakshmikantham. ….Petitioner And Kolukula Triloka Sundari, And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3407 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.410 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are his sisters. They filed the suit for partition of the property admeasuring Ac.1.20 cents situated in a remote Village of Tadepalligudem Mandal of West Godavari District. The suit was decreed and preliminary decree was passed directing division of the suit schedule property into three equal shares and allotment of one such share to the plaintiffs and defendants. Thereafter, the respondents filed I.A.No.3024 of 2008 for division of plaint schedule property into three equal shares and to allot two such shares to the plaintiffs/respondents. By impugned order dated 16.06.2009, the trial Court appointed an Advocate as Commissioner for division of the plaint schedule property, aggrieved by which, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the lower Court committed error in appointing Advocate Commissioner for division of the property in the absence of appropriate application under Order XX Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents relies on Challamane Huchha Gowda v M.R.Tirumala[1] and submits that in the absence of any specific provision requiring the decree holders in a partition suit to file an application for final decree, an application under Order XXVI Rule 13 of CPC can be filed for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for division of the property. A perusal of Order XX Rule 18 of CPC does not support the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there ought to be specific application for passing final decree under subrule (2) of Rule 18 of Order XX of CPC. A perusal of the decision of the Supreme Court in Challamane Huchha Gowda (supra) would certainly support the contention that there is no bar for treating an application under Order XXVI Rule 13 of CPC for appointment of Advocate Commissioner as a prayer for passing a final decree. Indeed, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents, in a suit for partition, the civil Court can always pass straightaway a final decree and whenever such final decree is not possible and further enquiry is required, passing of preliminary decree is resorted to. The Civil Revision Petition is misconceived, and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 08.10.2009 vs [1] (2004) 1 SCC 453