THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1909 of 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.04.2011 passed in I.A. No. 50 of 2006 in O.S. No. 107 of 1989, by the Junior Civil Judge, Palamaner, Chittoor District, appointing advocate commissioner to divide the suit property into three equal shares, as per the preliminary decree passed in the suit, with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the defendants in the suit and questioning the preliminary decree passed in the suit, they have preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 26 of 1996, but however, the same was dismissed for default on 17.09.2004, and thereupon the petitioners filed application praying the appellate Court to set aside the dismissal order dated 17.09.2004 along with another application to condone the delay occurred in filing the said application. She further submits that the petitioners also filed an application praying the appellate Court to grant stay of operation of the preliminary decree, and the same is also pending consideration. During the pendency of the said applications filed by the petitioners before the appellate Court, the learned trial Judge ought not to have allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs, for appointment of advocate commissioner to divide the suit property into three equal shares as per the preliminary decree. I am unable to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Admittedly, the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the preliminary decree passed in the suit was dismissed for default and the petitions filed by them praying the appellate Court to condone the delay, set aside the dismissal order, and grant stay of operation of the preliminary decree, are pending consideration and no orders are passed by the appellate Court. Since no stay is granted, the trial Court cannot be prevented from appointing advocate commissioner for division of the suit property in terms of the preliminary decree, as sought by the plaintiffs, and hence, I find no fault with the order under revision, warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, the petitioners may seek appropriate relief from the appellate Court where the applications for restoration of the appeal filed against the preliminary decree and grant of stay are pending. With the above observation, the civil revision petition is closed. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 1st July 2011 IBL