- (1.) Five partners of a partnership firm namely; M/s. Lallo Mal Hardeo Das, Cotton & Spinning Mill, Hathras, instituted a suit No. 67 of 1944 against other partners for dissolution of the firm and rendition of accounts. The suit was dismissed for relief of dissolution but certain damages were allowed. This led to filing of three appeals namely; First Appeals No. 2, 40 and 92 of 1959. In First Appeal No. 40 of 1959 applications were moved and after hearing the parties, this Court passed an order on 22nd March, 1965 dissolving the firm from the date of the suit itself and fixed the share of the partners and totalling to the tune of Rs. 24 lakhs. This Court also appointed and partners as Receiver to implement the directions and remitted the records to the Civil Judge, Agra for complying with the directions. On death of one of the receiver, the Civil Judge appointed his son, Ajai Kumar Garg in his place. The immovable property of the firm was situated at Mathura and Hathras. In pursuance of the directions of this Court, the Civil Judge vide order dated 15th February, 1979 after holding that the properties could not be put to auction before ascertaining its market value, allowed the Receivers to obtain offers from prospective bidders. However, it clearly mentioned that all offers could only be considered in a public auction to be held under the aegis of 184 a senior lawyer of that Court after the same is duly published in the newspapers. For ascertaining the appropriate value of the properties, the Receivers obtained several offers and one such offer of Rs. 5, 10.000/- made by one Dau Dayal was submitted to the Court. In a maze of several applications moved time and again, this offer relating to the Mathura Property came to be accepted by the Court on 4-11-1981 but no public auction or publication in newspapers took place. The petitioners who are tenants of the property at Mathura, vide their application dated 12th November, 1981 approached the Court reiterating that they had already made an offer of Rs. 4,70,000/- with the condition that the same could be matched with any other offer, but the offer of Dau Dayal was accepted behind their back. But the main contention of the petitioner tenant was that the offer has been accepted in the teeth of the direction contained in the orders dated 15-12-1979 and 15-3-1980, that no offer shall be accepted or finalized except by public auction after the publication in the newspapers. This application of the petitioner and their offer of Rs. 5,64,000/- appears to have been accepted by the Court vide order dated 11-1-1982 after recalling the earlier order dated 4-11-1981. As already noted hereinabove, this offer was also a private offer and not through a public auction. It appears that one of the Receivers made an application that the offers could not be accepted except after complying with the orders of the Court dated 15-2-1979 and 15-3-1980. The Court after examining the issue in detail came to the conclusion that in spite of specific orders neither any publication was been made in a widely circulated newspaper nor any auction had been place and, therefore, the order approving the offers were against the spirit of the said two orders and finding that such an approach would be against the interest of the estate, it modified the said two orders dated 11-1-1982 and 13-1-1982 and directed that the properties be put to auction after publication in daily newspapers. This order dated 16-2-1982 is under challenge before this Court by the tenant petitioners.
(2.) At this stage it may be necessary to point out that when this writ petition was filed the 1st Additional Civil Judge, was the only respondent arrayed and none of the Receivers were arrayed as party. This Court passed an order staying the orders dated 16th February and 24th February, 1982 so far as it related to property situated at Mathura. Though, an impleadment application was made by the petitioner, it remains pending till date. In the meantime, an application was made on behalf of one of the Receivers that the writ petition may be dismissed for non-joinder of parties. An application has also been made by the petitioner that the Court may dispense with the impleadment of the Receivers and in case it finds it otherwise, the petitioner may be permitted to implead them. Nevertheless, at least one of the Receivers is before the Court and has been heard. Therefore, the Court need not enter into this technical aspect, as interest of both the parties can be secured.
(3.) When this writ petition was taken up on 16th April, 2003, the counsel for the petitioners submitted an offer of Rs. 20 lakhs. The counsel for the petitioners upped his initial offer from 5,64,000/- to Rs. 20 lakhs. The counsel for one of the Receivers who was present informed the Court that the price quoted by the petitioner was the one prevailing in 1982, and it was not approximate and he be permitted to submit other offers. This Court, without going into the merits of the case, asked both the parties to submit their offer on 1st of May, 2003. On 1st of May, 2003, the counsel for the Receiver made an application that the offer of the petitioner of Rs. 20 lakhs be rejected and he submitted offers of two bidders namely Prem Singh son of Gujadhar Singh resident of Krishna Nagar, Mathura and Ram Gopal Sharma son of Jagdish Prasad Sharma resident of Kushagli, Mathura for Rs. 75 and 80 lakhs respectively. The following order was passed on 1st of May, 2003 : "In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 16th April, 2003 an application has been moved on behalf of Ajai Kumar Garg, Receiver of the property in question with the prayer that the offer of rupees twenty lacs made by the petitioners be rejected and the impugned order be maintained. Along with the application affidavit of two prospective bidders namely; Prem Singh son of Sri Gajadhar Singh, resident of Krishna Nagar, Mathura and Ram Gopal Sharma son of Sri Jagdish Prasad Sharma resident of Kushakgali, Mathura have been annexed wherein offers of Rs. 75 lacs and 80 lacs have been made by the said two persons. . 185 Sri S. P. Gupta, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner after consultation with his clients who are present in Court made another tentative offer of Rs. 55 lacs. However, both the parties agreed that these offers are tentative and if they are granted some time, they will make final offers together with furnishing bank drafts of the said final offers and the matter may be adjourned for two weeks. Without going to the merit of the dispute in the writ petition and the contention of the learned counsel for the parties, list this matter on 20th May, 2003, where both the parties will make the final offers together with bank drafts of the said final offers drawn in the name of the Registrar General of this Court. It will also be open to any other party to make offer but the offer should be final and in the nature of the draft aforesaid. Put up this matter on 20th May, 2003." ;