HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.6314 OF 2009 DATE:09-07-2010 BETWEEN: Sayyad Baji. …Petitioner AND Sayed Khasim & Others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.6314 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision is filed by the second defendant to revise the orders passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, dated 3.12.2009 in I.A.No.987 of 2009 in I.A.No.16 of 1996 in O.S.No.99 of 1988 whereby the petition filed by him to recall the commissioner warrant was dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents on the last two occasions and even today. Perused the material available on record. Earlier, I.A.No.616 of 2009 in I.A.No.16 of 1996 was filed by all the defendants including the petitioner herein requesting the Court to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to sell the property among the sharers or to outsiders and to deposit the sale proceedings into the Court. Later, the petitioner herein filed the impugned I.A. stating that he purchased the undivided shares of defendants 4,6 and 7 under a registered possessory agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney, dated 22.10.2009 vide document No.2548/2009 to an extent of 31.66% share in the suit schedule property. Therefore, now he is entitled to 31.66% share in the petition schedule property excluding his share of property which comes to 14.88%. The third defendant is also retaining his share of property jointly with him (petitioner herein) and not interested to sell away his undivided joint family property in the petition schedule property. Therefore, he prayed that in the changed circumstances, it is not necessary to sell the plaintiff’s undivided share but the same can be partitioned as per the shares among the sharers. The lower Court without adverting to the pleas raised by the petitioner, dismissed the petition simply stating that once the parties filed I.A.No.616 of 2009 in I.A.No.16 of 1996 seeking to conduct auction of petition schedule property, they again cannot turn around and say that the same is feasible for partition. The petitioner in I.A.No.616 of 2009 stated that the petition schedule property is not feasible for partition but in the present petition he says that it is feasible for partition, and therefore, both the pleas taken by the revision petitioner are not at all suited to the extent of the petitioner till he purchased some share from defendants 4,6 and 7, and that he will not get any better title or rights of his vendors. The observation made by the Court below is erroneous for the reason that when all the parties agreed for sale of the property, that property cannot be divided by metes and bounds having regard to the meager shares held by them. Once the petitioner purchased the shares of other shareholders, and now as he is having nearly 40% of the property to his share, the property can be divisible in view of the changed circumstances. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the lower Court is set aside and I.A.No.987 of 2009 in I.A.No.16 of 1996 in O.S.No.99 of 1988 is allowed. The lower Court is directed to entrust the warrant to the Advocate-Commissioner for division of the properties among the sharers as per their altered shares. The revision is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JULY 09, 2010 Tsr.