HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C R P No. 3074 OF 2010 O R D E R: The plaintiff in the partition suit, who obtained preliminary decree for partition and also final decree filed this revision petition questioning the order dated 08-07-2010 passed by III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in IA No. 739 of 2009 in OS No. 655 of 1994 appointing Advocate-Commissioner to sell the plaint schedule property in public auction and to deposit the sale proceeds into court. 2. The petitioner filed the suit in the year 1994 for partition. Preliminary decree was obtained for partition of the only property of 219.55 square yards of site with house therein and for allotment of one out of four shares to the plaintiff. There is no dispute that the plaintiff is in occupation of the entire house for his residence. In spite of the suit of the year 1994 and preliminary decree of the year 2001, the defendants/respondents are kept out of possession of their legitimate share in the plaint schedule property. The contention of the petitioner’s counsel that the petition was filed in the lower court under O-XXVI Rule -9 of CPC which has nothing to do with sale of properties in partition suit, is no ground to dismiss the petition. Even though wrong provision of law is quoted in the petition, the courts are at liberty to consider the rights under right provision of law. 3. After preliminary decree dated 10-12-2001 and after reports filed by the advocate commissioner and architect, the lower court came to the conclusion that the property is indivisible into four equal shares for the purpose of convenient enjoyment of the sharers therein. Therefore, the only remedy available for the parties is to sell the property in public auction and to divide the sale proceeds according to the respective shares. Previously, an exercise was done towards this end and the previous auction sale was set aside on the ground that there were certain irregularities in conducting the sale by auction. Therefore, the defendants filed the present petition in the lower court for appointing another advocate commissioner to make another attempt to sell plaint ‘A’ Schedule property in public auction. 4. According to plaintiff/revision petitioner, subsequent to the preliminary decree, he purchased 1/4th share of another brother, who is the 2nd defendant by name G.Sudershan Reddy and therefore, he became entitled to half share in the schedule property and therefore, in stead of selling the property by public auction, the property can be divided into two equal shares and that half share, which is not allotted to the plaintiff can be sold in public auction. It is contended by the revision petitioner’s counsel that there is no dispute on the part of the G.Sudershan Reddy / 2nd defendant with regard to sale of his 1/4th share in the property to the plaintiff. When this court asked details as to the sale, the revision petitioner’s counsel stated that the sale was by way of an assignment under an unregistered document. It is contended by the respondents’ counsel that the plaintiff did not give details of assignment or document or sale consideration. In the absence of a regular registered sale deed for 1/4th share of the 2nd defendant in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff did not acquire any rights in 1/4th share of the 2nd defendant. Therefore, the position remains as before, in the sense that each of the sharer has got 1/4th share in the schedule property. Assuming for a moment for the sake of argument that sale of 1/4th share by the 2nd defendant in favour of the plaintiff is true, legal and valid, even then the property which is 219.55 square yards still remains to be not capable of division. By ordering auction sale of the property, the plaintiff is not going to suffer any loss. In the auction sale, all the parties including the plaintiff can participate and in case the plaintiff becomes a highest bidder, he can deposit the auction sale amount by deducting the value of his share as per the preliminary decree. Thus, viewed from any angle, the order passed by the lower court is not in any way assailable. It is evident that the plaintiff having started the game of partition in the year 1994, has been successfully prolonging the litigation upto the year 2010 by squatting on the entire property. I see absolutely no bonafides on the part of the plaintiff in opposing the petition and in questioning the impugned order passed by the lower court. 5. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dt.16-12-2010 Mjl/*