(1.) This appeal is directed against an Order passed on 11.4.2000 by the learned Comarca Judge of Salcete and Quepem whereby he rejected application dated 7.12.1999 filed by the appellant for depositing owelty money or in the alternative to participate in the auction.
(2.) This case has a chequered history. In the inventory proceedings initiated in the year 1975, in a licitation held on 14.7.88, appellant offered the highest bid individually for Item no.2, and alongwith three others for item no.3. On 10.3.1989, Appellant sought extension of time to pay owelty amount. On 14.3.1989 at 11.00 a.m. Trial Court granted time. At 12.50 noon the Court rescinded the order and declared auction null and void. This Order was challenged before this Court. This Court quashed the order and remanded the matter for re-hearing. On 30.4.1992 Trial Court rescinded its order dated 14.3.1989 and this Court upheld this order on 12.2.1996 in Appeal From Order no.44/92. On 9.4.1999 the Trial Court permitted Pradeep Yeshwant, respondent no.8, to take part in a fresh auction. On 11.10.1999, in Civil Revision Application No.127/99 the High Court confirmed this order. Thereafter appellant filed application dated 7.12.1999, which was rejected by the impugned Order.
(3.) According to the appellant, Articles 1412 and 1417 of the Portuguese Code do not provide for disqualification of a defaulting bidder. Further, when other defaulting bidders have been permitted to deposit owelty money before start of new auction, (presumably by order in Civil Revision Application no.127/99 by this Court) denying the same right to petitioner would amount to discrimination. Highest bid for property item no.3, of Rs.13,01,010/- was offered by 4 parties who were to contribute proportionately. Failure by one would make auction ineffective as a whole. Lastly, according to appellant, licitation is after all an auction and therefore provisions of Articles 1417 read with Article 904 of Procedure Code would apply.