Judgment :- The order passed in E.A.No.4208 of 2005 in E.P.No.152 of 2005 in O.S.No.7780 of 1989 on the file of the Court of X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is under challenge in this revision. 2. The said E.A.4208 of 2005 was filed under Section 47 of CPC. Admittedly, the suit in O.S.No.7780 of 1989 was filed by the plaintiff for partition of her 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property. While, the said suit was pending trial, the plaintiff had entered into a settlement with 4th defendant and an affidavit of compromise memo which was recorded and accordingly, a preliminary decree for 2/3rd share was passed and a final decree under I.A.No.2297 of 1993in O.S.No.7780 of 1989 was also passed. In the final decree proceedings, on the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner as to the effect that the property is a dwelling house which is indivisible cannot be partitioned,in the final decree application, the Court ordered for sale of the property. Both in the preliminary decree proceedings as well as the final decree proceedings, D1 to D3 remained exparte. The public auction was conducted and the third party/the auction purchaser had purchased the property in entirety and had filed E.P.No.152 of 2005 in O.S.No.7780 of 1989 for delivery of possession. Only in the above said proceeding, E.A.No.4208 of 2005 was filed under Section 47 CPC by the 2nd and 3rd defendant challenging the public auction conducted as per the orders of the Court in the final decree proceedings in I.A.No.2297/1993. The executing Court had dismissed the application under Section 47 of CPC filed by D2 and D3 which necessitated D2 and D3 to prefer this revision petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners as well as the respondents. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners relying on a decision reported in Badri Narain Prasad Choudhary-v-Nil Ratan Sarkar(AIR 1978 Supreme Court 845)would contend that if the property is indivisible and cannot be partitioned by metes and bounds without destroying its intrinsic worth, there is no alternative but to resort to the process called Owelty, according to which, the rights and interests of the parties in the property will be separated, only by allowing one of them to retain the whole of the suit property on payment of just compensation to the other which was not adopted by the executing Court. 5. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners relying on another decision reported in Ramachandra Naicker-v-Seeyala Naicker(98 L.W. 359) would contend that in a sale of an undivided share in a property, the delivery in execution proceedings cannot be ordered but the remedy open to the auction purchaser is to file a suit for partition. Further the learned counsel would focus the attention of this Court to Sections 2 to 4 of the Partition Act and would submit that the said provisions were not followed by the Executing Court in the execution petition. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that a petition filed under Section 47 of CPC by D2 and D3 was rightly dismissed by the Executing Court on the ground that since they remained exparte both in the preliminary decree as well as in the final decree, they cannot raise their little finger against the execution petition filed by the auction purchaser under E.P.No.152 of 2005. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that without resorting to the provisions contemplated under Sections 2 to 4 of the Partition Act, the executing Court cannot proceed with the execution. 6. In fine, the civil revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the Executing Court to follow the provision contemplated under Sections 2 to 4 of the Partition Act and also the principle laid down in the ratio decidenti mentioned above and dispose of the execution petition within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2007 is closed.