(1.) The order in I.A. 390/1999 in O. S. No. 132/1994 passed by the Munsiff's Court, Kannur is assailed in this revision petition.
(2.) O. S. 132/1994 was filed for partition of the plaint schedule property and a preliminary decree for partition is passed by the lower court. I.A. 2415/96 was filed to pass final decree for partition in terms of the preliminary decree. The property sought to be partitioned was having an extent of 21.75 cents of land with a residential building. The commissioner who was appointed in the final decree proceedings found not convenient to divide the property by metes and bounds. Therefore, he suggested sale of the property among the parties by valuing the plaint schedule property at Rs. 11,47,175/-. As per the Order in I.A. 1924/98 dated 30.7.1998 the lower court accepted the Commissioner's suggestion and directed to sell the property in auction among the sharers. The petitioners applied for a certified copy of the decree passed as per I.A. 1924/98 in C.A. No. 1503/98. The court rejected the application by stating that only an order is passed in I.A. 1924/98 and no decree is passed in that I.A. and directed that the aggrieved party can agitate the matter on the judicial side by filing petition. Subsequently, the petitioner have filed the above I.A. 390/99 under S.151 of the CPC to direct to draft a decree in I.A. 1924/98. The lower court dismissed the application by the impugned order.
(3.) The petitioners herein who are the defendants 4, 6 & 7 in the suit and petitioner No. 3 and respondents 3 & 4 in I.A. 1924/98 have contended that the order passed in I.A. 1924/98 amounted to a decree affecting the rights of the parties very vitally and the court ought to have drafted the decree as per the order in the I.A. and issued certified copy of the decree to the petitioners as applied for by them. The respondents attempted to support the finding of the lower court that only an interlocutory order is passed in the I.A. and no decree need be drafted as per the order in that I.A.