1. ' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.---By this application the applicant Muhammad Amin has prayed for acceptance of his bid which was submitted before the Nazir of this Court on 28th April, 2008 along with original pay order of Rs,1,78,600. On the last date the Nazir was called, who has produced original bid along with original pay order.
2. ' In this matter notice was published in newspaper on 15-2-2008 and the last date of filing of bid and conducting auction was on 3-3-2008 and Muhammad Raees auction-purchaser was declared higher bidder, who had offered Rs,18,500 per ton.
3. ' Nazir has submitted reference for confirmation of sale in favour of Muhammad Races on 4-3- 2008 and the sale in favour of Muhammad Races was confirmed on 7-5-2008. After confirmation of the sale, Muhammad Raees has deposited the balance sale consideration of the rice with the Nazir of this Court on 12-5-2008.
4. ' In the application C.M.A. No,4395 of 2008 the applicant has not assigned any reason for not submitting the bid before the Nazir within time prescribed in the public notice.
5. ' Mr. Amanullah Khan and Mr. Shahab Sarki, Advocates for the plaintiff and defendant support the contention of Muhammad Amin and submit that it is in the interest of parties to the suit that bid of Muhammad Amin be accepted or other bidders may be directed to improve their bids.
6. ' Mr. Sohail Abbas learned counsel for the Auctioneer-purchaser has opposed the request and submits that once the sale is confirmed and the balance sale consideration has been deposited with the Court, the order for confirmation of sale in favour of the Auctioneer-purchaser cannot be recalled. Mr. Suhail Abbas has relied upon the reported case of Hudaybia Textile Mills and other v.
7. ABL and other PLD 1987 SC 512, in which it has been held that "Once a sale has been effected a third party interest intervenes which cannot be disregarded."
8. ' In another reported case of UBL v. A.Z. Hashmi and others 2000 CLC 1483 it has been held "that once the property has been lawfully purchased by the highest bidder and had fulfilled all legal formalities regarding payment of purchaser price etc., proceeding of such sale transaction could neither be withheld nor could be disturbed.
9. In this matter the sale was conducted on 3-3-2008 and the reference for confirmation of sale was filed in Court on 6-3-2008 which was first time taken up in Court on 7-5-2008 and was confirmed.
10. The applicant has not participated in the auction and has not assigned any reason for not doing SQ. The bid which was presented to the Nazir after the close of the Auction has no legal value and cannot be considered as the same is violative of the right acquired by A auction-purchaser.
11. Frequently entertaining such request after closing of the sale is seriously affecting the working as well as sanctity of the auction by Court and it will not be possible to conclude sale through Court and the order of the Court will loose its sanctity and the people will distance themselves from auction / sale conducted by Court.
12. ' In the instance case admittedly there are no allegations of any malpractices, irregularities or fraud in the process of auction conducted by the Nazir and no one has question of the legality of auction.
13. ' In view of the above I do not find any merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed.