VALLI UBEIDULLA Vs. VALLI MUSTAFA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A preliminary decree for partition and separate possession came to be passed in O. S. 261/91. Thereafter, an application was filed for passing of the final decree. A commissioner was appointed. The commissioner submitted a report stating that item No. 1 has to be divided into 72 shares and item No. 2 has to be divided into 576 shares and therefore the properties are not partible. Taking into consideration the non-feasibility to effect the division of the suit properties according to the terms of the preliminary decree and also taking note of the report of the Court Commissioner the Court by its order dated 21. 6. 1999 has Bordered the Commissioner to sell the suit schedule properties among the sharers by conducting auction and directed that the sale proceeds be divided in terms of the preliminary decree, among the sharers. It Is further ordered that in the event the sharers are not willing to contest in the sale proceedings then the property could be sold in public auction. It is in pursuance of the said order Court Commissioner conducted the auction on 30. 3. 2000 and the parties to the suit participated in the said sale, Respondent No. 6 Valli Ubedulla was the highest bidder for three lots of properties and the highest bid for lot No. 1 is Rs. 9,70,000. 00 for lot No. 2 'rs. 16,00,000. 00 and for lot No. 3 Rs. 1,11,000. 00. Calculating the one-fourth bid amount after deducting the share of the sixth respondent, the Court Commissioner directed the 6th respondent to pay one fourth amount by 12. 00 noon on 31. 3. 2000. The Commissioner thereafter reported to the Court that the 6th respondent failed to pay the bid amount within the stipulated time. After taking note of the memo filed by the Commissioner the court directed the 6th respondent to deposit one fourth amount on 12. 4. 2000 or latest by next day and he was further directed to deposit the remaining amount immediately after the reopening of the Court after vacation and the case was posted to 23. 5. 2090. On 23. 5. 2000 6th respondent deposited one fourth amount and sought for extension of time to deposit the remaining three-fourth bid amount. Though the other parlies to the proceedings did not file any objections and orally oppose the Court below rejected the said application holding that the reasons given for extension of time is not satisfactory. It is against the said order the present revision is filed.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends when the six the respondent has deposited one fourth bid amount and only sought for extension of time to deposit the remaining amount, when the other parties to the proceedings are not opposing the said application, the Court below committed an error in not extending the time sought for. Therefore, he submits the impugned order is liable to be set aside and he may be permitted to deposit the balance amount. In support of his contention he also relies on a judgment df the Andhra pradesh High Court in the case of BARATAM SATYANARAYANA vs bharatam KANTHARAO AND OTHERS.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents has no objection for granting a reasonable time to the petitioner to deposit the remaining balance amount so that the sale proceeds could be distributed among the other sharers.