IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4036 of 2009 Between: M. Nageswara Rao ..... PETITIONER AND P. Veeramma and six others .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: The matter is coming up for admission. 2. Heard Sri.K.Sitaram, learned counsel representing the petitioner. The learned counsel would point out that there is no specific prayer for appointment of Advocate Commissioner in the preliminary decree in I.A.No.175 of 2008 and hence, I.A.No.175/2008 cannot be proceeded with. The counsel also pointed out that the learned Judge having held that some clerical mistakes have crept in while drafting the decree ought to have allowed I.A.No.292/2009 and dismissed the I.A.No.135/2008. The counsel also would maintain that learned Judge had not appreciated the precedents governing the field in proper perspective. 3. Heard the counsel. 4. The petitioner and respondents 6 and 7 filed an application in I.A.No.292 of 2009 in I.A.No.135 of 2008 in O.S.No.65 of 1997 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Adoni under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to dismiss I.A.No.135 of 2008 which is filed for passing of final decree in terms of preliminary decree in O.S.No.65 of 1997 on the ground that it is non-executable. The specific ground taken is that the decree filed by the petitioners does not contain the relief relating to appoint the Advocate Commissioner to divide the property and for possession of the same. 5. In the light of the facts and circumstances and also in the light of the view expressed in S.V.MUTHU AND OTHERS v. VEERAMMAL (AIR 1981 Madras 307) and in B. SUBBA REDDY V. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, NSC CIRCLE, PELLUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AND ANOTHER (2007 (4) ALD 678) the learned Judge after recording reasons came to the conclusion that the application to be dismissed and accordingly the said application was dismissed with costs. 6. Aggrieved by the same the present CRP had been preferred. It may be that, there might have been some bona fide mistake, by that itself it cannot be said that the decree is not executable. Hence, this court is thoroughly satisfied that the order under challenge does not suffer from any illegality whatsoever. Hence, the CRP shall stand dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J September 17, 2009. PN/SMR THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4036 of 2009 September 17, 2009