1. Granted.
2. Deferred.
1. 3-4. This High Court Appeal has been filed with the following prayer:--- "In view of the above facts and in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience, it is humbly prayed that this honourable Court may be pleased to:
(a) Set aside the Order dated 7-1-2014 passed by the learned single Judge in Suit No,424 of 2010.
(b) Confirm the sale of suit property in favour of the appellant allowing her to match the higher bid of Rs,43,300,000/-..
(c) Any other additional relief as this honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(d) Cost of appeal."
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that the appellant and respondents Nos.1-3 are real brothers and sisters and surviving legal heirs (sons and daughters) of late Rani Gulfarin widow of late Naseem-ul-Haq.
3. The deceased left behind property bearing Plot No,97, admeasuring 856 sq. Yards, situated in Blocks 7 and 8, Overseas Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Karachi with construction thereon.
4. By an order dated 23-12-2013 passed by this Court, the Nazir was directed to sell the said property through auction to the highest bidder and to complete the said process in accordance with law.
5. The matter was fixed for such purpose on 28-12-2013 at 11:00 a.m. And the highest bid of Rs,43,300,000/- was received by the Nazir from one of the bidders. The bidding process lasted from 11:00 a.m. To 11:30 a.m. During this time the appellant, who was one of the legal heirs of the deceased, did not appear before the Nazir and, therefore, the bidding process was completed at 11:30 a.m. In accordance with the order of this Court. The appellant appeared before the Nazir at 12:08 p.m. And offered to match the highest bid but she was not allowed to do so as the bidding process had already been completed. The Nazir submitted his reference which was placed before the learned single Judge, who, vide his order dated 7-1-2014, accepted the highest bid of Rs,43,300,000/-. It is against this order that the present High Court Appeal has been filed.
6. ' Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant, is one of the legal heirs of the deceased and, therefore, was entitled to match the highest bid received in respect of the said property. He stated that the appellant should have been given some time to match the highest bid and the learned single Judge was not justified in accepting the bid of a stranger. He also stated that the appellant is even ready to match any enhanced bid in this regard. He, therefore, prayed that the appellant may be given a chance to match the highest bid and prayed that the finalization of the auction process may not be completed without giving the appellant a chance to match the highest bid in respect of the suit property as the same is her ancestral property.
7. ' We have heard the learned counsel at some length and have perused the record.
8. It is an admitted position that the appellant was not present at the time of the bidding process which lasted from 11:00 a.m. To 11:30 a.m. And that she only arrived at 12:08 p.m. And requested that she may now be allowed to match the highest bid. The only question for determination before us iS whether the Nazir was empowered to extend the time limit for the auction proceedings or not. In this regard it would be advantageous to reproduce the order dated 23-12-2013, by which the Nazir was directed by a learned single Judge of this Court to conduct the auction, the same reads as under:--- "In view of this position, and in order to safeguard the interest of all concerned, let all the concerned parties appear before the Nazir on 28-12-2013 at 11:00 a.m. On which date let there be a bidding between the concerned parties, being the parties to the present suit as also Mrs. Sanober Tahir and Mr. Abdul Majeed. No one else shall be entitled to participate in the bidding exercise and the bidding to start at Rs,4,31,00,000/-. Since I am of the view that interest of all concerned is to be protected, the defendant is also permitted to take part in this bidding exercise but the defendant must be personally present and unless she is personally present, she will not be allowed to take part in this exercise through any representative.
9. ' Once the bidding exercise, as above, has been completed, Nazir to prepare report, place it before the Court. It is clarified that no date or extension whatsoever shall be given and all parties must be present before the Nazir on the date and time given in case no one is present within half an hour of the time, then the exercise shall be deemed to have been closed and the offer today on the table of Rs,4,31,00;000/- shall be deemed to have been accepted."
10. ' A perusal of the above quoted order clearly shows that the learned single Judge has fixed the time and date of the auction and thereafter it was further clarified that "no date or extension whatsoever shall be given and all parties must be present before Nazir on the date and time given", Thus the learned Single Judge, in a most emphatic way put all the parties on notice that the bidding exercise has to be completed within the stipulated time and on the stipulated date. Each and every party/bidder was clearly conveyed the message that there would be no date or extension in time. In view of this the appellant was required to be extra cautious to ensure that if she was interested in matching the bid for her ancestral property, she should have been present before the Nazir well before the time or at least on the time. However, she did not reach the Nazir's office within the stipulated time to participate in the bidding process. The learned counsel was unable to give any plausible reason as to what precluded the appellant w reach the Nazir's office within time ' In view of the above, we are of the opinion that ample opportunity was provided to the appellant to match the highest bid in respect of the said property but she was unable to avail the opportunity for which she cannot blame anyone else but her own-self. No lease in this regard can be given to her.
11. ' Although the learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant is ready to match the highest bid or even to enhance the bid amount but, in our view, all this is an afterthought just to defeat and dislodge the order dated 23-12-2013. In case the appellant was ready, able and willing to match the bid amount then she was not precluded from participating in the auction proceedings held in the office of the Nazir on 28-12-2013 at 11:00 a.m. Of which she was well aware.
12. The appellant failed to adhere to the instructions. Contained in the order dated 23-12-2013 and, therefore, the Nazir was, completely justified in completing the auction proceedings at 11:30 a.m. As directed ,by the Court and the learned single Judge correctly accepted the highest bid through the impugned order.
13. ' In view of the above, we find no merit in this High Court Appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limine together with the pending application.