1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 446/2000 on the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, is the revision petitioner. The suit was filed for partition. The plaintiff claimed 5/12 shares over the Plaint 'A' and 'C' schedule properties and 1/4 share in Plaint'B' schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, the parties settled the matter among themselves out of Court and therefore filed I.A. No. 1297/2001, compromise petition, signed by all the parties to the suit and their respective advocates, praying that a final compromise decree may be passed accepting the compromise petition. The parties are prepared to pay requisite stamp duty for the preparation of compromise decree. The parties have also agreed to suffer their costs. Plans filed along with the compromise were agreed to form part of the decree. But the learned Munsiff, as per the impugned order dated 29.6.2001, dismissed the petition. The revision is aimed against the said dismissal.

2. Notice has been ordered to the respondents 1 to 3. Though respondents 1 and 3 had received the notice, they did not enter appearance. The second respondent could not be served as she left the place. After hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also considering the compromise petition filed by the parties, I do not find it necessary to hear the second respondent as she is one of the parties who signed the compromise petition expressing her desire to compromise the suit along with the other defendants and the plaintiff.

3. The order of the Court below is,

"Heard further. The petition is for passing a compromise final decree. Suit is for partition. No preliminary decree is passed in the suit. I am not inclined to allow this petition and hence the same is dismissed."

4. The argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that under O. XX, R.18(2) of Civil Procedure Code, there is no need of passing a preliminary decree and that the Court can accept the compromise petition filed under O. XXIII R.3 of Civil Procedure Code.

5. For clarity, I reproduce below O. XX R.18(2).

"R. 18. Decree in suit for partition of property or separate possession of a share therein.

Where the Court passes a decree for the partition of property or for the separate possession of a share therein, then,

(1)

xxx

(2) If and in so far as such decree relates to any other immovable property or to moveable property, the Court may, if the partition or separation cannot be conveniently made without further inquiry, pass a preliminary decree declaring the rights of the several parties interested in the property and giving such

further directions as may be required." (emphasis mine)

(With the Kerala Amendment to the Civil Procedure Code, the whole of Clause (1) and some portion in the beginning of the Clause (2) are omitted and it has got only one clause under R.18.)

6. O. XXIII R.3 is also reproduced below:

"3. Compromise of suit :- Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties, or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the suit, the Court shall order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith so far as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject-matter of the suit:" (emphasis mine)

7. As stated above, R.18 of O. XX directs the Court to pass a preliminary decree declaring the rights of the several parties interested in the property, which is the subject matter of a suit, only when the partition cannot conveniently be made without further inquiry. A preliminary decree determines the rights of the parties with regard to or some of the matters in controversy between the parties in a partition suit, all though it does not com