THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI Civil Revision Petition Nos.5757 & 5758 of 2007 COMMON ODER : Inasmuch as both these revision petitions emanate from a common proceeding and as the parties are the same, they can be disposed of together. The C.R.P. No.5757 of 2007, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners, who are defendants 1,3,4 & 7 in O.S.No.439 of 2001, aggrieved by the order dated 24-10-2007 passed in I.A.No.461 of 2004 in O.S.No.439 of 2001 by the XIII Additional Chief Judge, Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The C.R.P. No.5758 of 2007, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners, who are defendants 1,3,4 & 7 in the O.S.No.439 of 2001, aggrieved by the order dated 05-12-2007 passed in I.A.No.597 of 2007 in I.A.No.461 of 2004 in O.S.No.439 of 2001 by the XIII Additional Chief Judge, Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Respondent No.1, who is plaintiff in the suit, filed I.A.No.461 of 2004 seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to effect the partition of the properties shown in plaint schedules "A", "B", Items 1 to 3 in schedule "C" and items 1, 3 and 5 to 7 in schedule "D" in terms of the preliminary decree, dated 15-04-2004 passed in the main suit among the petitioner and respondents and to pass a final decree allotting and putting him in separate possession of his shares therein. The revision petitioners opposed the said application and contended that valuation of the property has to be obtained as on 27-07- 2005, which is relevant date, when these defendants have exercised their right under Sections 2 and 3 of Partition Act. The trial Court, after hearing either side, held that there is no reason as to why such objection was not raised at earlier point of time. Inasmuch as Valuer/Commissioner was already appointed and he filed his report, objections as raised are not tenable and the matter is to be proceeded with. Aggrieved by the above order, the revision petitioners filed I.A.No.597 of 2007 under Order 47 Rule1 C.P.C. to review the order dated 24-10-2007 passed in I.A.No.461 of 2004. The first respondent/plaintiff opposed the application contending that review is not maintainable, since it is only an order over objection on Commissioner's Report and Review is for limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. After hearing either side, the trial Court dismissed the application holding that the present application is not maintainable both in fact and law and accepted the contention raised by the plaintiff that present order dated 24-10-2007 cannot be questioned in the form of review and it is further held that if version of the petitioners/defendants is upheld, it amounts to substitute view, which is not permissible under review. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. Having perused the orders under revision, I am of the considered view that the trial Court has given cogent and convincing reasons for dismissing the I.As. I do not find any justifiable reason to hold that the orders under Revision suffer from any error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. However, it is directed that the terms of finalization of sale or auction has to be finalized on or before 30th September, 2009 in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. (T.MEENA KUMARI, J.) 20th August, 2009. skmr