1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 23-9-1997 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby he has accepted the highest bid of Rs,1,11,00,000 made by one Nayyar Hussain for the house in question and directed the parties to deliver vacant and peaceful possession to the Administrator within two days after receipt of their share.
' Brief facts of the case are that by order dated 29-8-1997 a learned Judge had accepted the offer of same bider, namely, Nayyar Hussain, for a sum of Rs,85,00,000 and had directed the bidder to deposit the amount with the O.A. Within a period of 15 days. With regard to the possession of the house to the purchaser the learned Judge had observed that, ' The question of vacating the house can be amicably sorted out by the parties in coordination with the Official Assignee within a short but reasonable period of time."
' The Official Assignee who is present in Court states that he had issued notice to the parties and while the respondent was willing to hand over possession of the portion in his possession the appellants were not willing to part with the possession. It appears that due to the dispute with regard to handing over of possession to the purchaser the bid amount of Rs,85,00,000 was not deposited by the purchaser within the 15 days period allowed but was deposited four days after the expiry of that period. The matter again came up before the learned Judge for consideration of Official Assignee's reference dated 8-9-1997 pertaining to the refusal of the appellants to vacate the premises. It was on that date that the learned Judge called for fresh bids from the bidders who were present in Court and in the process Nayyar Hussain who was earlier also the highest bidder with Rs,85,00,000 increased his bid to Rs,1,11,00,000 which was again the highest Bid for the house.
This bid was accepted by the Court by the impugned order and the purchaser was directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs, 26,00,000 within fifteen days which he did on 6-10-1997.
' The contention of Mr. Yawar Farooqi, the learned counsel for the appellants, is that the purchaser having failed to deposit the bid money within the fifteen days' period in pursuance of the order dated 29-8-1997, the 10% advance payment was liable to be forfeited, and the property re-sold by virtue of Rule 86 of Order 21, C.P.C., as such, the impugned order which has the effect. Of extending the time for the deposit of bid money under the said order dated 29-8-1997 is not in accord with the above rule 86, and therefore, not sustainable. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel.
For from extending the time for the deposit of bid amount under the previous order dated 29-8- 1997, it is apparent from the impugned order that the said order was -not acted upon and instead fresh bids were called from the bidders and in the process the new highest bid was of Rs, 1, 11,00,000 which was substantially higher than the previous bid of Rs, 85,00,000 accepted on 29-8-1997. This for all intents and purposes amount to re-sale of the property as contemplated by Rule 86. In so far as the non-forfeiture of the advance payment was concerned, that fell within the discretion of the Court and having regard to the circumstances of the case, we consider that the discretion was judiciously exercised.
' It is pertinent that while the earlier bid of lesser amount of Rs,85,00,000 was quietly accepted by the appellants, but now when the purchaser is willing to pay substantially more the appellants are agitating the issue. This shows that the purpose of the appeal is merely to avoid the handing over of the possession of the house to the Official Assignee and thereby to frustrate the sale. It is notworthy that the administration suit in which the impugned order has been passed is pending since 1992, and from perusal of the copy of some of the orders in the suit, it is apparent that the present bid of Rs,1,11,00,000 was the result of long -sustained efforts and accordingly it would be in the interest of the parties themselves that this opportunity to sell the property at a fair price is not lost. It may be mentioned that we enquired from the appellants' counsel if the appellants had any better offer for the property and his answer was in the negative. He also admitted that the appellants were not in a position to pay to the respondent his share on the basis of the-last bid.
' We find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed in limine. However, we allow the appellants seven days time from today to vacate the house in question and hand over its possession to the Official Assignee.
2. In view of the above order, this application is dismissed as having become infructuous.