1. Heard Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Keerthi Arun Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 9 and Sri UVS Laur, learned counsel for respondent Nos.11 and 12. Perused the entire record.

2. The Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the revision petitioners/petitioner Nos.1 to 3 to set aside the order dated 19.12.2024 in I.A.No.796 of 2022 in O.S.No.374 of 1994 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda, (‘trial Court’).

3. The background facts are that petitioner No.1 herein filed suit in O.S.No.374 of 1994 seeking partition and separate possession against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 herein and respondent Nos.1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13 herein with respect to suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties to divide them into 9 shares and to allot 1 share to her. Said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 29.04.2005 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The said judgment was challenged by respondent Nos.1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 herein vide A.S.No.76 of 2005. The said appeal was allowed in part by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District on 25.01.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein and respondent No.10 herein preferred Second Appeal No.1172 of 2017 and the same is pending before this Court.

4. Further, the petitioners herein and respondent No.10 herein filed review petition in A.S.No.76 of 2005 vide I.A.No.171 of 2008 and the said I.A. was disposed of vide order and decree dated 11.08.2015 allowing the review petition. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent Nos.1 to 9 herein filed C.M.A.Nos.191 and 292 of 2016 and the same are pending before this Court.

5. Further, I.A.No.796 of 2022 i.e., I.A. under revision was filed by the petitioners herein and respondent Nos.10 to 12 herein in O.S.No.374 of 1994 to pass final decree by partitioning suit schedule ‘A’ properties by meets and bounds, since the appeal was disposed of and there was no stay in the second appeal. Said I.A. was disposed of vide order dated 12.06.2024 by appointing an Advocate Commissioner to divide the suit schedule ‘A’ properties by metes and bounds in terms of preliminary decree. Aggrieved by the said order dated 12.06.2024 respondent Nos.1 to 9 herein filed C.R.P.No.2218 of 2024 before this Court. Said C.R.P. was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.10.2024. The operative portion of the said order is extracted and produced below:

               “6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of by setting aside the order dated 12.06.2024 in I.A.No.796 of 2022 in O.S.No.374 of 1994 and the matter is remanded to the trial Court for passing appropriate orders by appointing an Advocate Commissioner to divide the suit schedule property by metes and bounds by taking into consideration the fact that the preliminary decree dated 29.04.2005 passed in O.S.No.374 of 1994 was modified by the Lower Appellate Court in A.S.No.76 of 2005, dated 25.01.2008 and also the review order dated 11.08.2015 passed in I.A.No.171 of 2008 in A.S.No.76 of 2005, after hearing all the affected parties. However, since the suit pertains to 1994, the trial Court is directed to dispose of I.A. for passing final decree proceedings as expeditiously as possible.

               7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.”

6. In the said C.R.P., the trial Court was directed to pass appropriate orders by appointing an Advocate Commissioner to divide the suit schedule ‘A’ properties by meets and bounds by taking into consideration the preliminary decree dated 29.04.2005 in O.S.No.374 of 1994, the modified decree in A.S.No.76 of 2005 dated 25.01.2008 and the review order dated 11.08.2015 in I.A.No.171 of 2008 in A.S.No.176 of 2005. Following the said order, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 appointing an Advocate Commissioner with a direction to partition of Item Nos.1 and 3 as per orders in review application I.A.No.171 of 2008 batch in A.S.No.176 of 2005.

7. However, it is a point to be noted that the review petition also had a finding about allotment of share in Item No.4 of suit schedule ‘A’ properties i.e., the Court’s finding in A.S.No.76 of 2005 about Item No.4 being sold and the sale proceeds to be disbursed as per shares has been set aside directing partition of Item No.4 of suit schedule ‘A’ properties. This aspect has not been discussed in the impugned order.

8. The petitioners herein contend that Item No.4 property consisting of Ac.16-08 guntas is not sold and that all the daughters under Hindu Succession Act, 1956, are entitled to allotment of a share and the same is denied by the respondents. It is also submitted that there was an erroneous finding by the Court about non-existence of Item No.4 in A.S.No.76 of 2005 and therefore, the sale proceeds were ordered to be divided. The said finding is extracted and reproduced below:

               “22. …As observed by the Trial Court, item No.4 of “A” schedule property was already sold out. As such all the nine parties shall be entitled to 1/9th share each out of 1/5th share of late Bansilal in the sale proceeds of item No.4 of schedule “A” properties. It means the plaintiff as well as Defendants 2 to 4 are entitled to a share of 1/45th each in the sale proceeds of Item No.4 of “A” schedule property. …”

9. However, the above said finding has been modified by way of orders in the review petition i.e. I.A.No.171 of 2008 in A.S.No.76 of 2005 and therefore, said order has to be implemented. The relevant portion of order in I.A.No.171 of 2008 in A.S.No.76 of 2005 is extracted below:

               “30. In view of the above reasons, I am of the considered view that this court while deciding the appeal an error was occurred while allotting the share in Item No.4 of ‘A’ schedule property on the ground that the same was sold and the parties have to share the sale proceeds etc, as such it is liable to be set aside. Since the petitioners was able to establish that an error is apparent on the face of the judgment passed by this court earlier, I found it is a fit case where the petitions are liable to be allowed. Accordingly this point is answered.”

10. There is no order passed in the C.M.A.Nos.191 and 292 of 2016 or the Second Appeal No.1172 of 2017 disturbing the finding of the first appellate Court in A.S.No.76 of 2005 and the review petition I.A.No.171 of 2008. In the circumstances, there is a lapse on the part of the trial Court in passing the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 for division of Item Nos.1 and 3 without referring to Item No.4 of suit schedule ‘A’ properties.

11. Learned trial Court in the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 referred to the contention of the petitioners herein about division of a partition of Item No.4 and has misinterpreted the same. For reasons not known, the learned trial Court, while extracting the order passed in the review application in I.A.No.171 of 2008 in A.S.No.76 of 2005 with respect to Item No.4, having recorded that there was an error in the order passed in A.S.No.76 of 2005 and the same has been rectified in I.A.No.171 of 2008, rejected the contention of the petitioners and ordered for division of item Nos.1 and 3 only.

12. In view of the order passed in the review petition in I.A.No.171 of 2008, not only Item Nos.1 and 3, but Item No.4 is also liable for partition. To said extent, there is a lapse in the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 passed by trial Court, therefore to said extent there is a need for setting aside the impugned order and modifying the properties to be partitioned i.e., the Advocate Commissioner is directed to divide Item Nos.1, 3 and 4 of suit schedule ‘A’ properties in terms of judgment and decree in review application I.A.No.171 of 2008 in A.S.No.76 of 2005, instead of Item Nos.1 and 3 only.

13. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 with a direction to the Advocate Commissioner to divide Item Nos.1, 3 and 4 of suit schedule ‘A’ properties in terms of judgment and decree in review application i.e., I.A.No.171 of 2008 in A.S.Nno.76 of 2005 dated 11.08.2015. The rest of the directions in the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 remain unaltered. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.