HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1196 of 2010 Date: April 28, 2010 Between: Katar Diwakar Rao, S/o. late Narsimha Rao, Aged 65 years, Occ: medical practitioner, R/o. Ramavaram village, Kodakandla Mandal, Warangal District ... Petitioner And Katar Ramachander Rao, S/o. late Madhusudhan Rao, aged 42 years, Occ: private employee, R/o.H.No.34-57/1, Vivekananda Puram, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad, and others … Respondents Order: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed aggrieved of the order dated 30-10-2009, passed in I.A.No.1910 of 2009 in O.S.No.87 of 2009, by the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit, which is filed for partition and separate possession. Along with the suit, he filed three applications. So far as I.A.No.1910 of 2009 is concerned, the same is filed under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking appointment of advocate-commissioner to make local inspection of item No.1 of suit schedule property, to record physical features existing thereon. The court below, by the impugned order, ex parte, appointed an advocate-commissioner as sought. It is submitted by Sri V. Ravikiran Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned order does not contain any reasons for appointment of advocate-commissioner. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande, the learned counsel for the first respondent that, as the respondents-defendants were trying to remove traces of partition, there was requirement of appointing an advocate- commissioner to note down the physical features and the court below has rightly allowed the application by the impugned order. It is stated that the advocate-commissioner has already filed a report. So far as the order dated 30-10-2009 passed in I.A.No.1910 of 2009, the same is not a final order in the I.A. If the petitioner wishes to oppose the said order, he can as well file counter before the court below and seek dismissal of I.A.No.1910 of 2009. However, he has not filed any counter before the court below. In the circumstances, keeping open to the petitioner to file a counter opposing I.A.No.1910 of 2009, I dispose of this civil revision petition with the following directions: If any counter is filed by the petitioner herein, opposing I.A.No.1910 of 2009, the Principal District Court, Warangal, shall consider the averments made in the said counter, vis-à-vis the plea of the petitioner in support of the said I.A., and pass appropriate final orders in I.A.No.1910 of 2009, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is made clear if any report is filed by the advocate- commissioner in the meanwhile, the same will be subject to final orders to be passed in I.A.No.1910 of 2009. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) April 28, 2010 MRR