1982 PLP 953 (SCMR)

KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑‑Hakim Muhammad Ashraf and Mst. Razia Sultana (plaintiffs/respondents) filed a suit against Major M. A. Haleem (defendant/petitioner) for partition of a bungalow property jointly owned by them and bearing No. 50/51‑G Model Town, Lahore. A preliminary decree in this suit was passed by the learned trial Court on 24‑10‑1978 holding that the plaintiffs and the defendant were owners to the extent of one‑half share each in the aforesaid property. Thereafter proceedings for passing final decree ensued and ultimately the property was auctioned on 4‑6‑1979 in favour of Major Ghulam Ahmad (respondent No. 3 herein) for a sum of Rs. 9,55,

000. The defendant/petitioner on 10‑6‑1979 appeared before the learned trial Court and orally objected that the auction bid was quite low, pleading that the value of the property according to him was worth Rs. 11,00,000 and that he would produce a potential purchaser who would be willing to pay the aforesaid price. The Court recorded the statement of the petitioner in which after reiteration in the above manner he deposed that in case he did not produce the purchaser as aforesaid, the Court may confirm the auction. The learned trial Court granted time to the petitioner to do the needful by 16‑6‑1979 and adjourned the case to 17‑6‑1979. On the last mentioned date however the petitioner did not appear as it was stated that he had fallen ill and his learned counsel asked for more time and prayed for adjournment whereupon the case was adjourned to 21‑6‑1979, on which date again, the petitioner, asked for more time to produce the requisite customer. As there was no improvement in the situation the Court refused to give any further time to the petitioner and confirmed the sale, in favour of the auction‑purchaser/respondent No.

3. The petitioner at that stage filed an objection petition on 4‑7‑1979 under Order XXI, rule 90 of the C. P. C. against the aforesaid auction, pleading that it suffered from certain alleged irregularities etc. This petition was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on 4‑7‑1979.

2. The petitioner then filed an appeal being F. A. O. No 246/79 which also met the same fate and was dismissed by the High Court on 4‑2‑1980.

3. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the aforesaid order of the High Court to this Court.

4. Learned counsel tried to argue that the proclamation of auction which had been issued in this case was defective inasmuch as (a) it was not drawn up by the Court but by the auctioneer; (b) the description of the property in the proclamation was defective, and (c) that the auction was held within thirty days from the date of the proclamation whereas it should have been held according to law after a lapse of thirty days, and that due to the aforesaid alleged irregularities the entire auction proceedings were void and nullity. The contention has no merit. From what has been narrated above it will be evident that the petitioner had earlier accepted the auction and obtained various adjournments from the Court to produce a customer with a higher aforesaid price Rs. 11,00,000 failing that he stated he would himself pay price, failing which he further stated that the auction may be confirmed. Having pursuaded the Court to act in the aforesaid manner and after having obtained many adjournments in that respect the petitioner cannot be allowed to go back on his own solemn statement and nor can he be heard now to say that the Court committed any wrong if it passed the order in the manner in which he himself desired the Court to pass the same. The orders of the Courts below, in the circumstances based as they were on the statement of the petitioner himself do not suffer from any illegality and we find no justification to interfere with the same.

5. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.