JUDGMENT

K.M. Joseph, J.

The above cases being connected and being between the same parties, we dispose of the two cases by the following common Judgment.

2. The appellant is also the petitioner. The parties are brothers. A Suit for partition resulted in a preliminary decree. The parties were declared to be entitled to 1/3rd share in the property. The property which is the subject matter of dispute, is an extent of 11.850 cents with a shop room and residential building situated at Thrippunithura.

3. Originally, the first respondent filed IA.No.4560 of 2009 seeking to pass final decree. The said Application was later on withdrawn. According to the first respondent, it was on the basis OP(C) NO.3310/2011 O 2 that there was some compromise. Still later, Ext.P2 Application which was numbered as IA.No.1642/2011 was filed by the respondents. It was purported to be filed under Order 20 Rule 18 and Order 26 Rule 13 and Sections 54 and 151 of the CPC. The prayer was as follows:

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, this Honourable Court may be pleased to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to conduct an auction among the petitioners and the respondent herein for the sale of the pla