Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/2799/2025 of SHAIK LAL AHMED Vs NOORJHAHAN on 7 January 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3163] THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2799 of 2025 Between: 1. SHAIK LAL AHMED, S/O ABDUL JALEEL,
APHC010554642025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2799 of 2025
Between:
1. SHAIK LAL AHMED, S/O ABDUL JALEEL, AGED ABOUT 80
YEARS, R/O. 28-9-1, JALEEL STREET, ARUNDALPET, VIJAYAWADA.
2. MOHAMMAD RAFI, S/O ABDUL JALEEL, AGED ABOUT 63
YEARS, R/O. 28-9-1, JALEEL STREET, ARUNDALPET, VIJAYAWADA.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. NOORJHAHAN, W/O MOHAMMAD SHARIF, AGED ABOUT 60
VIJAYAWADA.
2. MOHAMMAD AFSER HUSSAIN, S/O MOHAMMAD SHARIF,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O 28-9-1, JALEEL STREET,
ARUNDALPET, VIJAYAWADA.
3. SHAMSHUNNISA, S/O MOHAMMAD SHARIF, AGED ABOUT
33 YEARS, R/O 28-9-1, JALEEL STREET, ARUNDALPET, VIJAYAWADA.
4. SHAZADI (DIED)
5. SHAMEEMUNNISA (DIED)
CMR,J
C.R.P.No.2799 of 2025
6. MOHAMMAD MUSTAFA, S/O S.M.KHASIM, AGED ABOUT 40
YEARS, R/O 16-16-250, ALI NAGAR, FIRST LANE, NEAR
SATYANARAYANA
SWAMY
TEMPLE,
OLD
GUNTUR,
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
7. SYED FAREED BASHA, S/O SYED RASOOL, AGED ABOUT
68 YEARS, ASIAN CELL SHOWROOM, R/O 28-9-1, JALEEL
STREET, ARUNDALPET, VIJAYAWADA.
8. K. RAVI BABU, S/O VENKATA KRISHNA VARMA, AGED
ABOUT AGED 81 YEARS. MYTRI BOOK SHOP, R/O. 28-9-1, JALEEL STREET, ARUNDALPET, VIJAYAWADA.
9. SK. KARIMULLAH, S/O SK.JANI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O 28-9-1, JALEEL STREET, ARUNDALPET, VIJAYAWADA.
10. G.RAJESH, S/O VENKATESH RAO, AGED ABOUT 47
VIJAYAWADA.
11. SAI KRISHNA @ CHINNA, S/O PAIDIYA, AGED ABOUT 50
YEARS, R/O 28-9-1, JALEEL STREET, ARUNDALPET,
VIJAYAWADA.
12. YASMEEN SULTANA, D/O MOHAMMED JIKRIA, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O 28-9-1, JALEEL STREET, ARUNDALPET, VIJAYAWADA.
13. MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN, S/O MOHAMMED JIKRIA, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O 28-9-1, JALEEL STREET, ARUNDALPET, VIJAYAWADA.
14. MUNEERUNNISA,
W/O
MOHAMMED
NAZEER,
AGED
ABOUT
YEARS,
R/O
28-9-1,
JALEEL
STREET,
ARUNDALPET, VIJAYAWADA.
15. MOHAMMED JEELAN HUSSAIN, S/O MOHAMMED NAZEER,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O 28-9-1, JALEEL STREET,
ARUNDALPET, VIJAYAWADA.
16. ABDUL JALEEL, S/O MOHAMMED NAZEER, AGED ABOUT
CMR,J
C.R.P.No.2799 of 2025
25 YEARS, R/O 28-9-1, JALEEL STREET, ARUNDALPET, VIJAYAWADA.
17. MOHAMMED AZMATH HUSSAIN, S/O MOHAMMED NAZEER,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O 28-9-1, JALEEL STREET,
ARUNDALPET, VIJAYAWADA.
18. SHAIK BASHA, S/O MASTAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 1-6-30/2, WARD NO.A/47, RAILPET. BAPTLA, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
19. SHAIK SHAABEEBUNNISA, D/O SHAIK BASHA, AGED
ABOUT 18 YEARS 1-6-30/2, WARD NO.A/47, RAILPET, BAPTLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
20. SHAIK MASTAN, S/O SHAIK BASHA, AGED ABOUT 16
YEARS, 1-6-30/2, WARD NO.A/47, RAILPET, BAPTLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. J.V.PHANIDUTH
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. V.V.L.N.PURNESH
The Court made the following:
CMR,J
C.R.P.No.2799 of 2025
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2799 of 2025
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R:
Assailing the order dated 16.09.2025 passed in I.A.No.903 of 2025 in O.S.No.22 of 2020 on the file of the learned VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, whereby the petition filed by some of the defendants in the suit to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for physical verification of the suit schedule property and to take measurements of the same with the help of an authorized surveyor was dismissed, the instant revision petition has been filed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
3. The petitioners are defendant Nos.1 and 9 in O.S.No.22 of 2020 on the file of the learned VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. The suit was filed against them and other defendants by respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein for partition of the plaint schedule property. It includes a house property also. According to the defendants, the said house property is not capable of division. Therefore, they have filed the above petition seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to take measurements of the suit schedule property after physically verifying the same, in order to ascertain whether it is physically divisible on ground or not.
4. The trial Court dismissed the said petition by the impugned order. The trial Court held that at this stage, there is no need to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to take measurements of the house property and file his report. The trial Court clearly held that if the suit is decreed and a preliminary decree is passed, then the plaintiffs have to
CMR,J C.R.P.No.2799 of 2025
file an application for final decree and in the said final decree proceedings, the Court will appoint an Advocate Commissioner for division of the property.
5. This Court finds no legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned order of the trial Court. At the time of trial of the suit, there is no need to take measurements of the property to ascertain whether it is divisible or not. If it is found that the said house property is the joint property of the plaintiffs and the defendants and if a preliminary decree is passed in the suit, then in the final decree proceedings, the Court will appoint an Advocate Commissioner for division of the property. Partition Act also will be applied for the purpose of division of the property. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition, which is filed at the fag end of the trial of the suit. No valid legal ground is emanating from the record warranting interference with the impugned order of the trial Court.
6. Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed, affirming the impugned order of the trial Court.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, in this case shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date: 08.01.2026 IBL
CMR,J C.R.P.No.2799 of 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2799 of 2025
Dt: 08.01.2026 IBL