IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4077 OF 2010 Between : Boorla Naresh .... PETITIONER A N D Boorla Veeresham and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 4077 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 09.08.2010, in I.A.No.203 of 2010 in I.A.No.427 of 2009 in O.S.No.34 of 2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Siricilla, whereunder and whereby, the application filed to include the properties i.e., Item No.2 of plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule property in the warrant of the advocate commissioner, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. O.S.No.34 of 2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla, was filed by the petitioner herein for partition and separate possession of his 1/5th share in respect of plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. The said suit was partly decreed in respect of Item No.1 of plaint ‘A’ Schedule property only. Against the said judgment and decree, the petitioner preferred A.S.No.24 of 2009 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, which was decreed for partition of remaining Item No.2 of plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. Against the said Judgment and decree the defendants preferred S.A.No.1122 of 2009 before this Court. 4. As seen from the record, this Court by order dated 09.02.2010 in S.A.M.P.No.2452 of 2009 in S.A.No.1122 of 2009, granted stay of all further proceedings only with regard to passing of final decree in respect of the properties mentioned in A.S.No.24 of 2009 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. There is no direction to proceed with other steps such as division of properties by metes and bounds, appointment of commissioner etc. Therefore, it is made clear that the stay passed by this Court is only with regard to passing of final decree, but there is no bar for disposing of the present application. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 09.08.2010 in I.A.No.203 of 2010 in I.A.No.427 of 2009 in O.S.No.34 of 2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Siricilla. The trial Court is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU. J OCTOBER 29, 2010. YVL