THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3436 of 2009 DATE:17.09.2009 Between: S. Sheshank Reddy … Petitioner And S. Suresh Reddy and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3436 of 2009 ORDER: The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.213 of 2005 in the court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against his mother-2nd respondent, brother-3rd respondent, and sisters- respondents 4 and 5, in respect of plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. The trial of the suit has commenced. At that stage, the petitioner, who is the son of the 1st respondent, got himself impleaded as defendant No.5. He rested his claim upon a Will said to have been executed by his grand-father, late Sudarshan Reddy. The petitioner filed I.A.No.2992 of 2008 in the suit under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, with a prayer to appoint a commissioner to make local inspection and to note the physical features of plaint ‘B’ schedule property. It was pleaded that the 3rd respondent herein has constructed a function hall over the land, and it is necessary to note the features thereof, lest, there is any substantial change by the time the suit is disposed of. The application was opposed by respondents 2 to 5. Through its order, dated 01.06.2009, the trial court dismissed the I.A. Hence this revision. Heard Sri J. Prabhakar on behalf of Sri G. Dhananjai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 2, 4 and 5, and Sri Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. The petitioner entered the fray in the suit, at a later stage, by filing an application to implead him as defendant No.5. He based his claim on a Will said to have been executed by his grand-father. The suit was filed by the 1st respondent for the relief of partition and separate possession of plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. No relief is claimed as regards any movable properties. Even assuming that the petitioner has the same right as any other party in the suit, the necessity, to appoint a commissioner in a suit for partition, arises, only at the stage of final decree proceedings. Further, the enjoyment of various items of property by each co-parcener or co-sharer shall be deemed to be, for and on behalf of other co-sharers. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has been bequeathed with any structures or items of movable property over plaint ‘B’ schedule property, under the Will. The trial court has considered the scope and ambit of the suit and dismissed the I.A. This Court is not inclined to take a different view. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. It is, however, directed that the trial court shall dispose of the suit un-influenced by any observations made by it in the order under revision or by this court in this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 17th September, 2009 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.3436 of 2009 17th September, 2009 CBS