JUDGMENT

The petitioners have challenged Ext.P6 order in I.A.No.4 of 2020 in O.S.No.12 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda. The application was filed by the petitioners for appointing an Advocate Commissioner to identify the properties with the aid of a Surveyor. The suit was one for partition. The question of partibility of one of the items is disputed in the written statement filed on behalf of defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5. It is stated that they have no objection in partitioning the property into 7 equal parts. The request in the commission application is to identify the property. The court below held that since there is no dispute regarding the question of partition the question regarding the extent available for partition and other aspects which are sought to be ascertained through the Commissioner are matters which can be decided at the final decree stage and need not be gone into at the stage of preliminary decree. At the stage of preliminary decree the court is only concerned with the partibility of the items which have been shown in the plaint schedule and the share of each of the sharers. It is only at the stage of final decree the manner of division is decided. I do not find any legal infirmity in the order.

The original petition is hence disposed of, making the order Ext.P6 absolute and relegating the parties for decision regarding the matters sought to be ascertained in the commission application, to the final decree stage.