(1.) Ext.P12, order passed by learned Principal Munsiff, Irinjalakuda on I.A.No.1269 of 2005 in O.S.No.1772 of 2003 is under challenge at the instance of the petitioner/defendants 1 and 2.
(2.) The trial court passed Ext.P2, preliminary decree dissolving the partnership and directing settlement of accounts. Respondents 1 and 2 filed Ext.P1, application for passing a final decree. In that proceeding, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to identify the property available to be dealt with. The Advocate Commissioner submitted Ext.P3, interim report. The Advocate Commissioner reported that extent of property available for the dissolved firm is 3.91.700/1000 acres out of which, 2.54.700/1000 acres is lying water logged and hence the Commissioner could not measure that portion. Petitioners preferred Ext.P4, objection to Ext.P3, interim report where ofcourse there was no objection raised as to the extent of property available to be dealt in the final decree. Instead, the objection was only regarding the accounts. Learned Munsiff by Ext.P7, order rejected the objections raised in Ext.P4 and permitted the Advocate Commissioner to auction property of the dissolved firm among co - owners. Ext.P4, order was challenged in this Court and this Court passed Ext.P8, judgment directing the trial court to consider the documents produced by the petitioners and referred to in Ext.P5, list. Thereafter, the Advocate Commissioner submitted Ext.P9, audited account with an interim report. In that interim report the Advocate Commissioner sought permission to sell the properties of the firm. Petitioners preferred Ext.P10, objection to Ext.P9. In Ext.P10, objection, petitioners contended that only 1.06 acres is available for the dissolved firm and that reference by the Advocate Commissioner in Ext.P3, report to 1.37 acres is understood be including the property belonging to the 3rd respondent. It was further contended in Ext.P10 that though in Ext.P3, interim report the total extent available to the dissolved firm is stated as 3.91.700/1000 acres, the actual extent available to the dissolved firm is 3.74. 700/1000 acres. Of that, the tile factory is situated in 1.06 acres and the rest is remaining as water logged area. Petitioners also raised an apprehension that if without identifying the remaining 2.54.700/1000 acres as well, it may create difficulties in future for the sharer who purchase the property in auction. That objection was, according to the petitioners, rejected by the learned Munsiff as per Ext.P12, order. Hence this Original Petition.
(3.) The learned counsel for petitioners contended that the entire property belonging to the said firm is liable to be sold and reading Ext.P12, it would appear that there is no such direction.