HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.129 OF 2011 DATE:04-03-2011 BETWEEN Madabushi Govinda Charyulu …Petitioner AND Madabushi Venkata Charyulu (died) and others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.129 OF 2011 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India is directed by the second defendant against the docket order of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, dated 30.11.2010 in I.A.No.1095 of 2010 in I.A.No.664 of 2010 in O.S.No.123 of 1991, whereby the application filed by the petitioner to permit him to deposit Rs.3,20,000/- excluding his share amount i.e. Rs.1,60,000/- towards the auction of the property has been dismissed. In spite of service of notice, the respondents have not chosen to put up appearance opposing the revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and I have gone through the material available on record. It is not in dispute that in the suit filed for partition of the suit schedule properties, I.A.No.664 of 2010 was filed for passing a final decree in terms of preliminary decree by appointment of commissioner for partitioning plaint ‘A’ schedule properties into 3 equal shares and to file the report of the Commissioner into the court. Basing on the report of the advocate-commissioner, the property was auctioned among the parties to the proceedings on 17.11.2010 and the bid was finalized for Rs.4,80,000/- and the petitioner was declared as successful bidder for the said amount. Since the petitioner is entitled to 1/3rd share in the property as per the preliminary decree, he filed the impugned I.A. to permit him to deposit the balance amount of Rs.3,20,000/- to finalise the auction in his favour. The respondents obviously have not opposed the petition since the petitioner is admittedly entitled to 1/3rd of the share in the suit schedule property. On dismissal of the I.A. by the impugned order, the present revision is filed. The impugned order does not disclose any reason except stating that though the claim amount fall under the share of preliminary decree, since the final decree to be passed, petitioner’s claim is rejected. The lower Court lost the sight of the fact that in the absence of any amendment/alteration of the preliminary decree, which has become final with regard to the shares of the parties, final decree can be passed only in terms of the preliminary decree but the shares cannot be altered. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the lower Court is not sustainable and the same is accordingly set aside and I.A.No.1095 of 2010 shall stand allowed. The lower Court shall proceed with the further proceedings in the matter. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. MARCH 04, 2011 Tsr.