HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.4213 OF 2009 DATE:22-01-2010 BETWEEN: Anisetti Rama Prasad …Petitioner AND Anisetti Venkata Ramanarao & Others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.4213 OF 2009 ORDER: After passing a preliminary decree in the suit filed for partition of the suit schedule property, petitioner-plaintiff filed I.A.No.120 of 2009 for passing a final decree by appointing an Advocate-Commissioner to ascertain his share in the moveable and other properties which were seized by the Advocate- Commissioner at the time of inventory and to divide the same into four equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the petitioner. In the said I.A., the Court below appointed an Advocate-Commissioner for ascertainment of his share as per the preliminary decree, dated 8.4.2004. Subsequent to the appointment of Advocate-Commissioner, petitioner filed I.A.No.485 of 2009 to direct the respondents to produce the gold, silver, copper and brass articles from time to time at the time of enquiry before the Advocate-Commissioner, which were listed in the annexure of the inventory commissions in I.A.Nos.612 of 1996 in O.S.No.56 of 1996 and I.A.No.689 of 1996 in O.S.No.62 of 1996. Opposing the said I.A., the respondents-defendants filed a counter stating that they are ready to render accounts to the extent of the properties for which the preliminary decree was passed apart from schedule ‘A’ to ‘H’ properties. According to them, the weighment mentioned by the petitioner are not true and correct, and that some of the articles in their possession were pledged articles and many of them were delivered to the pledges, and that some of them were auctioned duly exhausting legal process and some of them were taken by the petitioner under Ex.B.16 in his own handwriting. A list was prepared by the Advocate-Commissioner under annexure-VII as per Pawn tickets but corresponding ornaments are not traceable, and that annexure- IV is a list of ornaments pledged and they were given delivery under annexure-V and they are meant for delivery to public, and that annexure-VI is also a list of Silver articles inclusive of own as well as pledged articles. It was pleaded that the ornaments need not be made open for inspection at all times and shall only be made available only at the time of final settlement. The lower Court by order, dated 13.7.2009 dismissed I.A.No.485 of 2009 holding that as per the inventory list already prepared by the Advocate-Commissioner, the articles were handed over to the respective parties and as per the warrant issued in I.A.No.120 of 2009 for final partition, those articles need not be produced before the Advocate-Commissioner, and that the Court can determine basing on the inventory list as they are all liable to account for. It is to be seen that subsequent to the appointment of Advocate-Commissioner, an inventory list as to the articles/ornaments was prepared by the Advocate-Commissioner including the value and weighment etc. In view of the same, the articles can be distributed among the parties by the Advocate- Commissioner and it is for the Commissioner to require the parties to produce those ornaments in their possession before him for dividing those articles and all the parties can file a report for division of the properties/articles and at that time only the ornaments would be produced but it is not necessary to produce the articles each and every time before the Advocate- Commissioner as claimed by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, no infirmity or illegality is discernable with the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and is accordingly dismissed, but without costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JANUARY 22, 2010 Tsr.