- (1.) The suit is fairly recent, of 2008. This is an application made by the plaintiff in a partition and administration suit. He is a joint owner of a property situated on about 14 chittacks of land and numbered as 117/1A, Masjid Bari Street, Kolkata. He has an undivided 1/8th share in the property. He is in occupation thereof.
(2.) On 15th June, 2009, Mr. Niloy Sengupta, Advocate was appointed as Commissioner of Partition with permission, inter alia, to report to the court whether the property was partible. On 18th May, 2010 he reported that the property was not partible. Accordingly, by an order of this court made on that day, the Commissioner was asked to take steps for valuation and sale of the property. The sale was to be advertised in two newspapers, The Statesman and Pratidin . On 9th March, 2011, an order was passed for extension of time to make the publication. It was passed upon mentioning by the Commissioner of Partition. The exact reason why the order dated 18th May, 2010 was not carried out for about ten months is not known. Finally, on 17th April, 2011, notice of sale was published in those two newspapers. It appears that Mr. Debasish Baral and Mrs. Priyanka Baral of 9D, Md. Ramjan Lane, Kolkata, made an offer to buy the property at Rs.22,00,000/-. It is alleged by the plaintiff that these purchasers have been set up by the first defendant so that the plaintiff cannot buy the property. This is of course denied by the intending purchasers, the Barals and the first defendant. However, these intending purchasers tendered Rs.5,50,000/- as earnest on 16th August, 2011.
(3.) Now, the first defendant filed an application numbered as G.A. No. 2863 of 2011, asking the court to accept the offer of the Barals. The plaintiff appeared in court at the time of hearing of that application. It was submitted on his behalf that the plaintiff was willing to match that offer. The court by its order dated 20th September, 2011, gave him an opportunity, provided he paid the earnest money of Rs.5,50,000/-. The court made it explicit that the auction would be held in court to accept the higher offer.;