THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2949 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: Heard both sides. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 30.03.2009, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, allowing the application in I.A.No105 of 2008 in O.S.No.122 of 1996, filed under Order 26 Rule 13 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner for partitioning the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the petitioner as per the preliminary decree passed by that Court. The petitioners are the respondents and the first respondent herein is the petitioner in the said interlocutory application. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that an appeal is preferred against the preliminary decree passed in the said suit, as such, during the pendency of the appeal, if the partition is effected by the Commissioner as per the preliminary decree, the very purpose of filing the appeal becomes redundant, causing prejudice to the rights of the petitioners. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that taking into account the totality of facts, the trial Court was right in allowing the said application and hence, prays to dismiss the Revision Petition. In the light of the fact that though an appeal preferred against the preliminary decree is pending, no stay has been granted therein and also having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the trial Court was right in appointing Advocate-Commissioner to proceed with the enquiry as regards the apportionment of the properties in terms of the preliminary decree but ought to have extended the order further by pre-empting the passing of any final decree. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 04th December 2009 dr