IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 30TH APRIL 2010 / 10TH VAISAKHA 1932 CRP.No. 228 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 2320 OF 2009 IN OS.590/1998 of MUNSIFF COURT,KAYAMKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. MUHAMMADU SHERIFF, NEDIYATHARA VEEDU, PERINGALA MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. 2. LAILA BEEVI, NEDIYATHARA VEEDU, PERINGALA MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. NAZEEMA, W/O.SAFAR, KOCHUNADATHEKKATHIL, KUREEPUZHA CHERIYIL, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, FROM NEDIYATHARA VEEDU, PERINGALA MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. 2. KUNJUMUTHU BEEVI, KOIPALLITHEKKATHIL, KARUVATTA. 3. FATHIMA BEEVI, SHAHANATHU MANZIL, NANGARKULANGARA. 4. RAMLATHU BEEVI, NEDIYATHARA VEEDU, PERINGALA. 5. SEENATH, NEDIYATHARA VEEDU, PERINGALA. 6. IRSHAD, NEDIYATHARA VEEDU, PERINGALA. 7. RASHEEDA BEEVI, NEDIYATHARA VEEDU, PERINGALA. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.228 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of April, 2010. ORDER Petitioners before me are defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.590 of 1998 of the court of learned Munsiff, Kayamkulam. A preliminary decree for partition was passed and pursuant to that, respondent No.1/plaintiff filed application to pass final decree. He filed I.A.No.2320 of 2009 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to effect division in accordance with the preliminary decree. That application was opposed by petitioners on the ground that attempt of respondent No.1 is to make available a portion of the property for additional defendant No.7 who remained exparte through out. Learned Munsiff overruled the objection and allowed I.A.No.2320 of 2009. That order is under challenge in this revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Learned counsel submits that if division as stated in the preliminary decree is made in favour of additional defendant No.7 that will put the petitioners to inconvenience. 2. I am afraid, a Civil Revision Petition itself is not maintainable since the disposal of I.A.No.2320 of 2009 does not amount to a 'case decided' to come within the purview of Section 115 of the Code. That apart, learned Munsiff has observed that a detailed scrutiny (of the objection) and acceptability of the report of Advocate Commissioner is required only at a later stage (at the time the CRP No.228/2010 2 application for passing final decree is being considered). That has protected the interest of the petitioners in that it will be open to them to raise all their contentions while the application for passing final decree is taken up for consideration and disposal. There is no reason why I should interfere with the order appointing the Advocate Commissioner which is impugned in this case. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore dismissed. I.A.No.1076 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks