S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.1200/1999 Shri Prem Chand Kasliwal Vs. Bhag Chand Godika Dated : 16.11.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. S. Kasliwal, for the petitioner. Mr. SM Mehta Sr. Advocate with Mr. DS Poonia, for the respondent. *** Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 28th May, 1999 whereby the Additional District Judge No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur directed both the parties to furnish their valuation of the immovable property for the purpose of fixing the terms and conditions of the sale, as the partition of the immovable property was not feasible. Scathing the impugned order, the petitioner has sought the following relief: (i) that the impugned order dated 28th May, 1999 passed by the learned trial Court be quashed and set aside to the extent that the immovable property could not be partitioned between the parties and needs to be auctioned/sold. (ii) that the immovable properties should be partitioned in accordance with the reports submitted by the Commissioner dated 11th February, 1998 and 8th September, 1998. 2. Contextual facts of the case depict that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a civil suit on 30th June, 1986 for dissolution of the firm M/s Vijay Metal -2- Industries, for rendition of accounts and the share of the plaintiff-petitioner in the movable & immovable properties. The learned trial Court passed preliminary decree vide order dated 2nd December, 1994 and thereby dissolved the firm from 26.4.1986, declaring their share in the partnership firm property. The trial Court also appointed the Commissioner who pursuant to the directions of the Court, proceeded to take necessary action relating to rendition of accounts and distribution of movable and immovable properties of the firm. He submitted his reports from time to time. At last, the learned trial Court came to conclusion on 28th May, 1999 that the factory land could not be partitioned amongst the parties and thus directed both the parties to submit their valuation reports with regard to the immovable property of the firm for the purpose of fixing the terms and conditions of the sale. The revisionist felt aggrieved with this order, hence, this revision. 3. At the very outset, it is recorded that the learned counsel for the parties are agreeable to the impugned order dated 28th May, 1999 and prepared to comply with the directions issued therein. They undertake to submit their valuation reports before the learned trial Court within a period of fifteen days and pray that the learned trial Court may be -3- directed to take their valuation reports on record and expedite and conclude the court auction proceedings in two months. 3. In view of above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the revision petition fails and the impugned order dated 28th May, 1999 stands upheld. Learned counsel for both the parties are directed to appear before the Additional District Judge No.1 Jaipur City, Jaipur on 30th November, 2010 and submit the valuation reports of immovable property in accordance with the instructions laid down in the impugned order. 4. The learned trial Court should expedite the proceedings and conclude the same in accordance with the provisions of law within a period of two months. 5. There shall be no order as to costs. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Pcg