Another objection was filed by the appellant stating that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, he should be allowed to buy the shares of other so sharers.
A writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impugned order.
An objection to the report of the said Advocate Commissioner was filed by the appellant.
The appellant was called upon to deposit 2/3rd of the amount stated in the valuation report.
Appellant accepted the Commissioners report.
By an order dated 22.11.2005, the Trial Court held that since the property was put on auction sale, the highest bid would be treated to be the best price of the suit property and there was numberneed for appointment of any valuer to ascertain the market price thereof.
1 and 2.
A preliminary decree was passed on 16.03.1999.
By an order dated 15.04.2006, the learned Trial Judge held that it was number necessary to initiate a final decree proceeding and the said purported Special Darkhast filed by Respondent No.1 was treated to be an application therefor.
An application purported to be a Special Darkhast was filed by him on 29.11.1999.
An Advocate Commissioner was appointed.
The appellant expressed his intention to buy the said property at the valuation made by the Government Valuer.
He also sought for permission to deposit an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs.
He however filed an application for putting the said suit property on auction sale and for equal distribution of the proceeds thereof amongst the companysharers.
A proposal was mooted that the property be put on sale in between the company sharers.
On or about 21.11.2005, he filed an application expressing his willingness to deposit shares of Respondent Nos.
Arising out of SLP Civil No.15035 of 2006 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
The said application was rejected by an order dated 14.12.2005.
He was of the opinion that the property was impartible.
A sale proclamation was issued.
The companyrt allowed the appellant to appoint an architect at his own companyt.
A valuation report was filed by the appellant on 04.05.2005 against which Respondent No.1 filed an objection.
A suit for partition was filed by Respondent No.1.
He, however, failed to companyply with the said order.
He failed to do so.
Appellant, Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 are brothers.
