B M K KHOSLA Vs. RAJ KUMAR KHOSLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. FAO(OS) No.335/2007 and CM No.11979/2007 (Delay) There is a delay of 303 days in preferring the appeal and an application for condonation of delay has been filed, but as arguments have been advanced on merits of the case, we propose to dispose of the appeal on merits. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14th Mach, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge passed in IA No.5497/2006 and CS(OS) No.2520/1996. In the suit for partition, a preliminary decree was passed on 20th May, 1998 taking note of the fact that shares of the parties were admitted. Thereafter Local Commissioner filed his report with a valuation report of the property at Jalandhar. The learned Single Judge on 27th September 2006 noticed that the property had been valued at Rs.1,07,47,345/- by the government valuer. This valuation was acceptable to all parties except the appellant herein- defendant No.2. The appellant claimed that the value of the property was Rs.1,24,94,300/-, to which the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 and 3 had responded stating the they were agreeable to the property being sold at the price quoted by the appellant-defendant No.2 and the appellant-defendant No.2 may purchase the property at the said price, if he so wishes. But it was submitted on behalf of the appellant-defendant No.2 that he was not interested in purchasing the property himself at the amount quoted by him and the same may be put to public auction. The learned Single Judge has specifically recorded that the plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 1 and3 and also of the counsel appearing for defendant No.2 had stated that property could be sold through public auction and accordingly a direction was issued. Considering the facts, the valuation of the property was prima facie fixed at Rs.1,07,47,345/-, the said amount was fixed as the reserve price for the property. The said FAO(OS) No.335/2007 Page 2 of 4 order became final and binding as no appeal was filed against the said order by any of the parties. In order to give effect to the aforesaid order dated 27th September, 2006, the Local Commissioner was permitted to invite bids for sale of the property fixing the reserve price as above.

(2.) The learned Single Judge considered the bids submitted by various bidders and after examining the bids, passed the order dated 14th March, 2007 directing inter se bidding amongst the three bidders who had submitted their bids, in order to fetch maximum price for the property.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order dated 14th March, 2007, the appellant/defendant No.2 has filed the present appeal contending inter alia that inter se bidding between strangers who have submitted their bids cannot be directed, for such inter se bidding could have been only between the parties to the suit. It is stated that there is conflict between orders dated 27th September, 2006 and 14th March, 2007.