1. ' WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J.--The facts of this case are rather involved. The Official Assignee is the Liquidator for M/s. Ali International (Pvt.) Ltd. There were three plots in Gulistan-e-Jauhar, purportedly, belonging to such Company/its Directors etc. Out of these, two were, apparently, purchased by the present appellant but only one is relevant for our purposes. Such admeasuring 400 sq. Yds., is numbered as SB-40, Block-7, Gulistan-e-Jauhar, Karachi. The plot was first advertised for sale, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, on 3-3-1991 again on 8-2- 1992 and likewise on 11-9-1993 but between 8-2-1992 and 11-9-1993 objections were received from M/s. Paracha Brothers (Pvt.) Ltd., in the shape of Civil Micellaneous Application No,832 of 1992.
2. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 11-9-1993, the appellant made his offer of Rs,8,25,000 for this plot and that was accepted on 2-12-1993, the appellant paying the consideration money on 2-1- 1994. However, since the abovesaid objections were pending, the Official Assignee, in aid of justice, on 10-1-1994 that is to say in about a week's time of the payment by the appellant, wrote a letter to him, suggesting that the appellant had the option to withdraw the offer and the money deposited by him. Such letter, which is a short one, is reproduced here:-- "The Plot No,SB-40, Block 7 Scheme 36, Gulistan-e-Jauhar, Karachi was put to sale twice. When it was advertised for second time, some objection has been received.
3. ' Under the above circumstances, you may take back your amount or wait till such time the Hon'ble Court decides the objection."
4. ' The appellant, pursuant to the letter, sought to withdraw a sum of Rs,7,00,000 out of the payment of Rs,8,25,000 on 19-2-1994 but at the same time also "requested that the Hon'ble Court maintain our right and ownership on the plot SB-40 and inform us of the decision regarding the objection".. It would appear that the matter was laid before a learned Judge on the original side, ultimately, on 23-4-1996, at a time when the appellant was represented by a learned advocate, who, according to MRs, Merchant, did not appear, having been on general adjournment. In any case, on 23-4-1996 the Court decided to resell the plot in question by inviting fresh officers, The relevant portion of the order is as under:-- "8. According to Official Assignee's Reference No,89, Muhammad Amin Qazi purchaser of the plot in.
5. Question, has approached the Official Assignee that he is prepared to deposit the balance amount of rupees seven lacs and the plot be given to him. As against this one Saleh Muhammad Dadwala has given offer of this plot for ten lacs and according to the Official Assignee the present value of the plot may be more than Rs,10 lacs. Purchaser Muhammad Amin Qazi has withdrawn Rs,7,00,000 out of Rs,8,25,000. As such he has no valid claim over the plot in question. In order to fetch maximum price of the plot the Official Assignee is required to sell the plot by inviting fresh offers through advertisement in daily Jang, Karachi (Urdu).
6. ' For the foregoing reasons Civil Miscellaneous Application No,438 of 1992 is accordingly dismissed and consequently Official Assignee's References Nos.84 and 89 stand accepted."
7. ' The next stage in the proceedings arose when the Official Assginee stated afresh the prevailing situation before the learned Single Judge through Official Assignee's Reference No, 89, which came up for consideration on 12-6-1996. At that time, the appellant did contest the matter but the learned Judge, after examining the situation thoroughly, came to the conclusion that the property should proceed to sale, as earlier ordered. The appellant, however, was left with the option to match the relevant offers received of the property in question. It is against this order that the appellant has come here, preferring this appeal on 4-8-1996.
8. ' In the meantime, according to the Official Assignee, before the appellant preferred this appeal, another offer of Rs,15,50,000 for the same property was received and such offer, when placed before the learned Single Judge on 13-8-1996, was also accepted. Significantly, there was no stay of proceedings in this appeal at that time. That appellant has not, so far even sought to join the new purchaser here.
9. It is in the aforementioned background of facts that we have to consider this appeal. We are of the view that there having been objections pending at the time, when the property was advertised for sale, the offers received, pursuant to the advertisement, should not have been accepted, one way or the other, while such objections were pending. This entails two difficulties manifestly. Firstly a property which was sold subject to pending objections, could hardly fetch its real worth in a competitive market and secondly, the sale, if any, finalized while the objections were pending, could hardly stand, if the objections came to be upheld.
10. ' Another circumstance in the case is grounded in the fact that the final order against the appellant was passed on 23-4-1996 because it is then that the property had been put to re-sale. The appellant could have preferred even a belated appeal but did not and thus allowed that order to become final. The only occasion, why the matter was re-agitated on the original side, arose because the Official Assignee, on his own, resubmitted the reference and the Court was constrained to examine it. That should not give a fresh cause or a fresh period of limitation to the appellant. A past and closed transaction cannot revive thus and the appeal should be incompetent.
11. ' Lastly we have to look to the equities in the case. The company in liquidation was, apparently, dealing with investments by the public and many a orphans and widows must have suffered at such hands. It, therefore, should have been the endeavour of the Court to obtain as high a price of the assets and properties of the company in liquidation as could lawfully be obtained. This is precisely what transpired on the original side. The current purchase price may not be twice as much as provided by the appellant but it is nearly as much and that aspect cannot be ignored.
12. What is more, the appellant adopted a clever attitude. He could, as proposed by the Official Assignee, either keep his money deposited and await the determination of the objections or take it away altogether. He could hardly do both. He chose to take away bulk of the money namely, Rs,7,00,000 out of Rs,8,25,000 and left behind only a small proportion, with a view to take advantage of the situation, whatever way the same may settle. The appellant is not entitled to equities because the appellant failed to choose either one of the above courses, without reservations, provided to him by the Official Assignee. On our part, even though the appellant has riot, so far joined the new purchaser, we asked the appellant's learned counsel to ever now compete with the said purchaser and match his offer. This was done in the larger interest of every body, including creditoRs, The appellant's learned counsel, however, declined even this opportunity.
13. ' In view of the foregoing, this appeal together with the listed application fails.