THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. No.5265 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.21 of 2006 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Addanki against the respondents for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. Four years after the institution of the suit, he filed I.A.No.394 of 2010 under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C., with a prayer to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to observe the existence of a house in item No. 9 of the suit schedule property; extent of the damage caused to it by respondents 3 and 4, and to file a report specifying the physical features. He pleaded that with a view to defeat his claim in the suit, the respondents 3 and 4 have demolished the house and that it is necessary for the Court to get not only the report as to the existence of the state of affairs, but also about the value of the property. Detailed account of the properties is given. The 4th respondent filed counter, opposing the claim, and the same was adopted by the respondents 1, 2, 3 and 5. According to them, the partition has taken place between the petitioner and his father, the 1st respondent, long back, and the suit properties have fallen to the share of the 1st respondent. A deed of settlement is said to have been executed in favour of the 4th respondent in respect of item No. 9 of the suit schedule property. It is stated that certain parts of the building were demolished to make it fit for living. They further pleaded that the application was filed after the entire work was undertaken, and there are absolutely no bona fides for the petitioner. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 17-09-2010. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents. In a suit for partition, the occasion or necessity for appointment of a Commissioner arises at the stage of final decree. The petitioner herein filed application with a prayer to appoint the Advocate Commissioner to note the physical features, the state of affairs at the building, etc. If the petitioner has any serious objection for alterations being caused to one of the items of the suit schedule, he has to file an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., to obtain appropriate orders. Appointment of Commissioner, obviously, is totally uncalled for. In case a preliminary decree is passed, every property as it existed as on the date of partition, must be taken into account. Ascertainment of the value of the property even before a preliminary decree for partition is passed, is unknown to law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has made certain observations, while dismissing the I.A., which, in turn would have their impact upon the suit. The record discloses that on certain aspects, the petitioner himself invited certain observations from the trial Court. This much however can be said that no observation made by the trial Court, while disposing of the I.A., shall be treated as a final pronouncement on the merits of the suit. In fact, the learned Judge has also made that aspect clear. Hence, the C.R.P is dismissed, directing that the suit shall be decided on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations made by the trial Court in the order under revision. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.28-07-2011. KO