THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.Nos.3063 & 3064 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions are filed by the same person and both of them arise out of the orders passed by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, in E.P.No.68 of 2010 in O.S.No.54 of 2005. The 1st respondent is the brother, and the 2nd respondent is the sister of the petitioner. The 1st respondent filed the suit for partition and separate possession of two items of immovable property. A preliminary decree was passed by the trial Court on 23-09-2005, directing that the suit properties be divided into three equal shares and that the parties be allotted one share each. The 1st respondent filed I.A.No.271 of 2006 for passing the final decree. A Commissioner was appointed by the trial Court. The petitioner remained ex parte in the proceedings. The respondents 1 and 2 agreed that the first item of the suit schedule be allotted to the 2nd respondent. They have also reported that the second item be divided into three equal shares and one share each be allotted to the petitioner and the 1st respondent. A final decree was passed in those terms, on 14-08-2007. The 1st respondent filed E.P.No.68 of 2010 for execution of the final decree. The 1st respondent filed E.A.No.617 of 2010 with a prayer to direct the Amin of the Court to take the assistance of a Surveyor for dividing the property. The Executing Court allowed the E.A., through order dated 14-07-2011 and appointed a Surveyor. C.R.P.No.3063 of 2011 is filed against the said order. The petitioner filed an application, numbered as C.F.R.No.5853 of 2011, with a prayer to auction item 2 of the suit schedule by pleading that the property is not capable of being divided into equal shares, and that the Commissioner appointed by the Court in the final decree proceedings has expressed the same view. The Executing Court dismissed the application, through order dated 21-07-2011. The petitioner filed C.R.P.No.3064 of 2011 against the said order. Sri N. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner had raised several contentions in his attack to the orders under revisions. The record however discloses that the petitioner remained ex parte in the final decree proceedings and the final decree passed by the trial Court assumed finality. It may be true that the Commissioner appointed in the I.A.No.271 of 2006 opined that it is not advisable to divide the item 2 of the suit schedule property into two equal parts. The trial Court, however has taken a different view, particularly when the 1st respondent expressed his willingness to take half of the said item. In case the petitioner wanted any different course of action, he ought to have participated in the final decree proceedings, or at least, challenged the final decree. The only step left was, to seek execution of the said decree, and accordingly the 1st respondent has taken necessary steps. Appointment of a surveyor is only to assist the Court in dividing the property into equal shares, as directed in the final decree. Further, the prayer made by the petitioner for sale of the property cannot be acceded to, particularly when the 1st respondent is willing to take his share of the property. Across the Bar, it is brought to the notice of this Court that efforts to convince one of the parties to sell his share to the other, did not fructify. The only alternative is, to divide the property into three equal shares. Inconvenience, if any caused to one or both of them cannot be helped. Hence, the revisions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.01-08-2011 KO