1. This revision petition is filed against the order of the first Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, madras, passed in I.A. No. 652 of 1972 in O.S. No. 2435 of 1969 on 5-12-1972. In and by the said order, the learned Judge has directed the suit property to be sold. It is clear from the records that there is a petition by the plaintiff, to the effect that a Commissioner should be appointed to sell the property and divide the sale proceeds into four equal shares inasmuch as the property is not divisible. The Commissioner has also filed a report stating that the property is not divisible and hence it has to be sold in public auction. Hence I do not think that the Court below has to applied its mind before ordering the sale. Nevertheless, the petitioner herein alleges that, subsequent to the order of sale and before it could take place, she has filed a petition under Section 3 of the Partition Act for the purpose of purchasing the property herself after the Court valuing the price of the property by appointing a Commissioner. This is a substantive right that a sharer can get especially in a partition suit. Sections 2 and 3 have been introduced in the Partition Act as observed in Ramamurti Iyer v. Raja V. B. Rao, : 1SCR904 , for the purpose of preventing the property falling into the hands of third parties if that can be done in a reasonable manner. Since the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 3 for the purpose of purchasing the property for the value that may be fixed by the Commissioner, it is but fair that an opportunity must be given to the petitioner herein for the purpose of purchasing the property herself. No doubt, it is alleged by the learned counsel for the respondents herein, that there are no bona fides in this petition made by the petitioner inasmuch as she wants to delay the sale of the property as long as possible. Whatever it may be, with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of this matter before this side of the vacation, this civil revision petition is allowed. The learned First Assistant Judge is directed to hear the petition, I.A. No. 973 of 1973, immediately and pass an order in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Partition Act. There will be no order as to costs in this revision petition.