M. AMARNATH Vs. M. RAVINDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed against the order dated 1.5.2014 passed by the Court of III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in IA No. 132 of 2014 in OS No. 119 of 2001. The suit was filed for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. Basically, the division was between three brothers and three sisters. A preliminary decree was passed allotting 9/48th share to each of the brothers and 1/48th share to each of the sisters. The preliminary decree assumed finality, with the dismissal of the appeal filed against it. The 1st respondent filed IA No. 132 of 2014 under Order XXV Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC, with a prayer to appoint an Advocate -Commissioner, to divide the suit schedule property.

(2.) THE I.A. was opposed by the petitioner who figured as defendant No. 8. According to him, after the preliminary decree was passed, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was arrived at between the parties whereunder he agreed to take the shares of others by paying a sum of Rs. 2,10,00,000/ - and a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/ - is already paid, therefore, the final decree proceedings cannot take place in view of the changed circumstances.

(3.) SRI B. Vijaysen Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the 1st respondent and others have entered into MoU with the petitioner, the trial Court ought to have taken the same into account. He contends that in the changed scenario, on account of the MoU, the appointment of Advocate -Commissioner to divide the property cannot be countenanced. He further submits that even otherwise, the trial Court ought to have ensured the presence of all the parties and there was no basis for passing the order under revision by setting almost all the respondents, ex parte.