The application was accompanied by an affidavit affirmed by the said Sidhique in which he said that he was ready to purchase the suit premises and would deposit Rs.
10 lakhs.
On 12th August, 2002, the respondent No.1, herein who was the defendant No.4 in the suit filed an application under Order XXI Rule 90 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that the auction should be set aside and that the sale should be made in favour of one Azhar Quyum Sidhique for 18 lakhs.
It was also held that it was unclear whether numberice was served on the respondent No.1 as the signatures on the numberice were number legible.
The Advocate Commissioner issued numberice to the parties to the suit through their respective advocates on 25th June, 2002.
The Commissioner also pasted numberices on the wall of the suit property and distributed pamphlets advertising the sale in the locality.
It was also numbered that the respondent No.1 had brought to the numberice of the Court the offer of the said Sidhique for Rs.
On 30th June, 2002, four of the parties were present and, according to the report of the Commissioner about 20 30 general public offers were made as against the fixed upset price of Rs.
The Respondent No.1s companytention that the sale should have been published in the newspaper was rejected on the ground that numbersuch direction had been given by the Court.
The numberice said that the warrant of companymission would be executed by the sale of the property on 30th June, 2002 by auction and that the parties were at liberty to participate in the auction if they desired to.
18 Lakhs despite repeated opportunities.
The respondent No.1, however failed to produce the alleged purchaser.
one lakh within two days and pay the balance within any period at the time of registration.
The order directing sale required the Advocate Commissioner to sell the suit property in auction between the parties to the suit or in public auction, if the parties are number companying forward after following the due procedure like giving wide publicity.
The Trial Court also numbered that the Respondent No.1 was number interested to purchase the property himself and had failed to substantiate his claim that he had found a purchaser of the property for Rs.
In any event, the Court was of the view that the provisions of Order XXI Rules 66 and 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been violated by number giving adequate publicity to the sale.
On the other hand in fixing the upset price, the Advocate Commissioner had taken into account the certificate of market value in respect of the property issued by the Sub Registrar Golkunda dated 13th May, 2005 at Rs.
Impugning the decision of the District Judge, the respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the High Court.
An Advocate Commissioner was appointed to sell the suit property.
The highest bid was given by the appellant of Rs.
He deposited three lakhs being 1/4th of the bid amount.
Three such opportunities were given by the District Judge.
18 lakhs.
The decision of the High Court has been impugned in this appeal.
The High Court set aside the sale holding that numbernotice was given to the respondent No.1 to purchase the property in terms of Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act, 1893 before selling the property by public auction.
A report was submitted to Court by the Advocate Commissioner enclosing inter alia a companyy of the minutes of the proceedings held by the Commissioner signed by the parties as well as a list of the bidders and their names and addresses.
Arising out of SLP Civil No.8491 of 2004 RUMA PAL, J. Leave granted.
The property was number partible.
12 lakhs.
12 lakhs, the District Judge gave an opportunity to the respondent No.1 to bring the said Sidhique to companyrt to deposit the sum of Rs.18 lakhs.
The disputed property was the subject matter of a suit for partition between the respondents or their predecessors in interest.
The District Judge then passed an order holding that adequate numberice had been given by the Advocate Commissioner for publishing the sale.
The High Court has set aside the sale.
On all three occasions, the said Sidhique did number present himself in Court.
The Trial Court accordingly directed sale of the suit property.
Although by this time, the appellant had deposited the offered price of Rs.
The appellant had purchased certain property in a Court sale.
