M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter arises out of the order dt. 12-1-1988 made on I. A. 1 in F. D. P. 16 of 1986 (in O. S. 119 of 1983) on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Managalore. I. A. 1 was filed by respondent in the lower Court inter alia seeking an order that the property in question may be sold to the plaintiff after determining its value. The Court, instead of granting relief as prayed for by the Revision-Petitioner in his application I. A. 1, proceeded to direct sale by public auction by appointing a Commissioner and it further granted permission to petitioner-plaintiff (though the order reads 'respondent-1' which apparently is an error) to bid at the auction. Therefore, the present revision is preferred inter alia contending that there is no proper disposal of I. A. 1 and the Court has acted contrary to the provisions of Ss. 2 and 3 of the Partition Act. ( 2 ) THE facts themselves are not in dispute, except, Mr. Janardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for some of the respondents, has strenuously contended that the plaintiff is adopting delaying tactics to deprive one of the sharers who is almost on her death-bed to have the fruits of the decree. It is unfortunate that it is so. But our justice dispensation system is highly procedure oriented and delays were inherent in such a system and may not be avoided in every case. In fact, there is no guarantee that in any other system, justice is more efficacious or speedier. Therefore, the Courts undoubtedly will endeavour to give speedy disposal if there is co-operation from all parties including counsel appearing for parties. ( 3 ) SECTION 2 of the Partition Act reads as follows : - 2. In fact, there is no guarantee that in any other system, justice is more efficacious or speedier. Therefore, the Courts undoubtedly will endeavour to give speedy disposal if there is co-operation from all parties including counsel appearing for parties. ( 3 ) SECTION 2 of the Partition Act reads as follows : - 2. Power to Court to order sale instead of division in partition suits.- Whenever any suit for partition in which, if instituted prior to the commencement of this Act, a decree for partition might have been made, it appears to the Court that, by reason of the nature of the property to which the suit relates, or of the number of share-holders therein, or of any other special circumstance, a division of the property cannot reasonably or conveniently be made, and that a sale of the property and distribution of the proceeds would be more beneficial for all the shareholders, the Court may, if it things fit, on the request of such share-holders interested individually or collectively to the extent of one moiety or upwards, direct a sale of the property and a distribution of the proceeds. " from the above, it is clear that Court may direct sale of immovable property when it is found that it is not possible equitably to divide the property in question by metes and bounds amongst all the sharers. It is also implicit that the parties in that circumstance may move the Court for sale. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of R. Ramamurthi Aiyar (Dead) By L. R. S. v. Raja V. Rajeswara Rao, AIR 1973 SC 643 , the application could not be mandatory. Even the satisfaction of the Court without an application would give justification to provide the solution in case property is not equitably divisible by metes and bounds. But once the Court comes to the conclusion that the property may be sold on the application of one of the parties, as in the instant case, then the Court must follow the procedure laid down in the Act. That procedure is to be found in S. 3 of the Act which reads as follows :-"3. But once the Court comes to the conclusion that the property may be sold on the application of one of the parties, as in the instant case, then the Court must follow the procedure laid down in the Act. That procedure is to be found in S. 3 of the Act which reads as follows :-"3. Procedure when co-sharer undertakes to buy.- (1) If, in any case, in which the Court is requested under the last foregoing section to direct a sale, any other shareholder applies for leave to buy at a valuation the share or sharer of the party or parties asking for a sale, the Court shall order a valuation of the share or shares in such manner as it may think fit and offer to sell the same to such shire-holder at the price so ascertained, and may give all necessary and proper directions in that behalf. (2 ). If two or more share-holders severally apply for leave to buy as provided in sub-section (1), the Court shall order a sale of the share or shares to the share-holders who offer to pay the highest price above the valuation made by the Court. (3) If no such shares-holder is willing to buy such share or shares at the price so ascertained, the applicant or applicants shall be liable to pay all the costs of or incident to the application or applications. "therefore, having regard to the language of S. 3, directing sale by public auction will arise only when there is no agreement in regard to the valuation of the property put by the Court at which valuation, the person or persons intending to purchase, will have to purchase the property. The need for public auction will come only in the event such valuation and agreement to purchase has not been reached and not otherwise. The need for public auction will come only in the event such valuation and agreement to purchase has not been reached and not otherwise. ( 4 ) THE learned Judge has completely overlooked that aspect of the case and as such, the order is liable to be set aside and he be directed to strictly conform to the procedure laid down and proceed to fix the valuation of the property by consent of parties or by appointing as Commissioner an expert valuer and if the valuation certificate of the expert valuer is acceptable wholly, then he may proceed to direct the plaintiff before him to purchase the share of other sharer's at the valuation accepted by all. It is only when that procedure fails to yield result, he may order sale by public auction. ( 5 ) IT is further made clear that plaintiff alone is not entitled to buy the property, but others may also bid inter se. ( 6 ) BEFORE parting with this case, I must point out, the learned Judge has passed order on I. A. 1 hastily with certain amount of callous indifference not even noticing clearly the prayer and the averments in support of the prayer as is apparent from the enclosures to the Revision Petition. I must also find fault with the learned Judge for scribbling (which is almost indecipherable) on the order-sheet while an important application in the proceedings before him required to be disposed of. While legibility cannot be compelled, illegibility of the kind in the instant case cannot go unnoticed. Where the presiding officer cannot write a neat-hand, he should take the assistance of a Stenographer or typist to record in the order-sheet, what he intends to translate or what he intended to write while disposing of the matter. Otherwise, he must cultivate a good hand and write. on order-sheet neatly and legibly. In the result, subject to the observation, this Revision Petition is allowed; order under Revision is set aside and the trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with the directions contained above. The Court will also ensure that no adjournment shall be granted for any reason whatsoever and the matter proceeded expeditiously from day-today if necessary and dispose it of before Jan. 15, 1989. The Court will also ensure that no adjournment shall be granted for any reason whatsoever and the matter proceeded expeditiously from day-today if necessary and dispose it of before Jan. 15, 1989. A copy of this order will kindly be forwarded to the Hon'ble Judge of this Court who is in charge of the Administration of Dakshina Kannada District. Petition allowed. 1988 --- *** --- .