Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation by the respondent. 2. The revision is filed against the order passed by the Court below on an application filed by the plaintiff under Section 3 of the Partition Act (in short the "Act"). The Court has allowed the petition and the defendant, who is aggrieved against the order, seeks to set aside the same on the ground that the Court could not have directed the property to be sold only to the plaintiff and that the directions granted by the Court below are in contravention of the provisions of the Act. 3. It is an admitted case where the decree has been passed on 111. 2002 for partition of the property under the terms of which the petitioner and the respondent have been declared entitled to equal moieties. The Commissioner, who has been appointed to inspect the property for suggesting the mode of division, is said to have given a report, which, according to the petitioner, has not been made public. The impugned order of the learned District Munsif refers to the fact that the property is incapable of division. It is not discernible as to how the Court had come to such a conclusion or whether there was anything in the report of the Commissioner which has enabled the Court to come to such conclusion. The report of the Commissioner is meant only to the benefit of parties and the procedure to keep the report in a sealed cover is un-understandable. The Court below could not have passed that order without making the report of the Commissioner public and only if the property had been reported to be indivisible, either one of the parties could have worked out their rights under the Partition Act. 4. Even if the report had indicated that the property was incapable of division, then, the Court could not have given a direction under Section 3 of the Act without deciding whether the property should be directed to be sold, which it could do by resorting to the procedure referred to in Section 2 of the Act. 5. Sections 2 and 3 of the Act are required to be read conjointly. 5. Sections 2 and 3 of the Act are required to be read conjointly. Section 2 of the Act is applied whenever in a suit for partition a decree had been passed and it appears to the Court that by reason of the nature of the property, the division of the property cannot reasonably and conveniently be made and that a sale of the property and distribution of the proceeds would be more beneficial for all the share holders. If such a finding is recorded by the Court, then, it would be open for any one of the parties to apply under Section 3 to direct a sale at the instance of any one of the share holders, who by an application, shall obtain leave of the Court to buy at a valuation of the share asking for a sale. The Court then shall order a valuation of the share in such manner as it might think fit and offer to sell the same to the share holder at the price so ascertained. If more than one share holder applies simultaneously to buy the property, then, the Court could offer the property to the person who offers the highest price. The provision under Section 3(2) makes it clear that the procedure for private auction would arise only if both the parties are willing to purchase the same property. No one share holder is entitled to insist that the other share holder shall not bid or if he bids, there is a chance of such person outbidding the other. The scheme of the Act is clear that while recognising the pre-emptive right of the share holders to bid amongst themselves, there is no method by which the Court can prohibit one share holder to bid to the detriment of the other. The order passed by the Court below is clearly wrong and opposed to the spirit of the provisions of the Act. 6. The order of the learned District Munsif passed on 2. 2008 is, therefore, set aside. The order passed by the Court below is clearly wrong and opposed to the spirit of the provisions of the Act. 6. The order of the learned District Munsif passed on 2. 2008 is, therefore, set aside. The report of the Commissioner shall be made available to both the parties by opening the sealed cover if it is put in such a sealed cover and if the Court is of the opinion that the property cannot be divided and that it should be sold, then follow the procedure under Section 3 of the Act, by directing the valuation of the property and offering the property to a person who offers such price. It could resort to the provision under Section 3(2) of the Act, if both the share holders apply for leave to buy the property, and in which case, the property shall be ordered to be sold to the highest price above the valuation made by the Court. In both events, it is first required that the Court below shall make a valuation of the property appropriately by taking assistance of an Engineer or allow for the market conditions to be applied by opening the bids only among the share holders. The matter is, therefore, remitted to the Court below for undertaking the exercise in the light of what is stated above. The civil revision petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2008 is closed.