HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos.1380,1381 and 1390 of 2005 Date: 3.3.2010 Between: P. Satyanarayana Petitioner. And P. Sarojini and others. .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos.1380,1381 and 1390 of 2005 COMMON ORDER: O.S. No. 220 of 1984 was filed in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzivid for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The petitioner figured as defendant No.2 in the suit. The trial Court passed a preliminary decree on 10.2.1989. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed A.S. No. 15 of 1989 in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. The appeal was allowed on 31.10.1997. The preliminary decree was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial Court. After remand, the trial Court passed a preliminary decree on 2.5.1998. A.S. No. 52 of 1998 was filed by the petitioner in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, which was dismissed on 13.11.2000. The plaintiff in the suit filed I.A. No. 401 of 2002 before the trial Court with a prayer to appoint a Commissioner to enable the Court to pass a final decree. In that I.A., the petitioner filed three applications. His grievance was mostly about the description of item No.2 of the suit schedule property. A Commissioner was appointed and he submitted a report. The petitioner had grievance about the description on account of item No.2 of the suit schedule property. According to him, though the extent mentioned in the schedule is only 0.05 cents, the boundaries cover 0.12 cents and the remaining 0.07 cents exclusively belonged to him. In this context, he filed I.A. No. 1333 of 2004 with a request to permit him to raise objections to the report of the Commissioner. I.A. No. 1334 of 2004 was filed with a request to call for the records from the record room of the Court of the District Judge, Machilipatnam. I.A. No. 1335 of 2004 was filed for permission to amend the boundaries of Item No.2 of the suit schedule property. All the three applications were dismissed on 23.2.2005 and 3.3.2005, through separate orders. Heard Sri G.V.L.N. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner had created every possible block in the process of partition of the properties, which are in fact very meagre in extent. A preliminary decree was passed five years after the suit was filed. A.S. No. 15 of 1989 filed by the petitioner was allowed in 1997 and the matter was remanded. Once again preliminary decree was passed on 2.5.1998. In case, the petitioner had any objection about the description of item No.2, he ought to have raised that before the trial Court by taking a plea in the written statement. The plea could have been reiterated in the appellate Court. The appeal, admittedly was dismissed for default. Therefore, he cannot raise any objection as to the correctness of the preliminary decree at this stage. In the final decree proceedings, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the boundaries of Item No.2. Such an application is totally untenable and the trial Court has correctly dismissed the said application. This Court is not inclined to take any different view. I.A. No. 1334 of 2004 filed by the petitioner is as vague as it could be. The prayer is to call for the entire records from the record room of the District Court, Machilipatnam. The number of the case is not furnished at all. Even if the particulars are furnished, it is not at all competent for the trial Court to call for the records at the stage of final decree, particularly, when the purpose is not mentioned. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the order passed in I.A. No.1334 of 2004. In the final decree proceedings, a Commissioner was appointed and he in turn submitted a report indicating as to the manner in which the property can be divided as per the preliminary decree. It is always open to any party in a preliminary decree to raise objection as to the report and the trial Court is under obligation to consider the same. In the event of the objections being not taken into account, the aggrieved party would have an opportunity to prefer appeal. Therefore, the trial Court ought not to have dismissed I.A. No. 1333 of 2005. For the foregoing reasons, the C.R.P. Nos. 1380 of 2005 and 1381 of 2005 are dismissed. C.R.P. No. 1390 of 2005 is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. The trial Court is directed to take into account the objections raised by the petitioner visa-a-vie the report of the Commissioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY,J DATE: 3.3.2010 pnb