T. N. VALLINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) THE order of the final decree Court is F. D. P. 13/1990 passed in i. A. No. 15 is assailed in this Civil Revision Petition preferred by the 2nd Defendant in the suit. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the 2nd defendant in the lower Court. The first respondent is the plaintiff and the 2nd respondent is 1st defendant. A suit for partition was decreed and a final decree application has been filed in F. D. P. No. 13/1990. The property described in Schedule-'b' was ordered to be auctioned between the parties. The terms of sale was settled by the parties. One of the condition was that the successful bidder should deposit 25% of the auctioned money on the date of auction sale and the successful bidder should deposit the balance of auctioned money within 15 days from the date of auction sale and one of the term of the agreement was that if the successful bidder failed to deposit the money within the period stipulated, the auction in his favour stands cancelled and the next immediate highest bidder will be declared the successful bidder and he shall deposit the auction money into court within 15 days from that date. The 1st defendant also submitted that as per the terms of sale, the lower Court passed the order accepting the terms of sale as proposed by the plaintiff and then fix the date for action. The 1st defendant was the successful bidder and his bid was for Rs. 40 lakhs and the 2nd defendant (the petitioner herein) was the 2nd highest bidder whose bid amount was Rs. 41/2 lakhs and the plaintiff's bid was only Rs. 4 lakhs, who is the 3rd highest bidder. The 1st defendant who was first highest bidder deposited a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs subsequently he was not able to deposit the balance as per the order of the Court. It is claimed therefore, the petitioner herein has to be accepted as highest bidder and contra to this effect an application was filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC on 19. 09. 1997 for setting aside the auction sale proceedings and to held fresh sale on fresh terms. The petitioner/2nd defendant filed his objections and contested the case and the Court below by its order dated 18. 10. 09. 1997 for setting aside the auction sale proceedings and to held fresh sale on fresh terms. The petitioner/2nd defendant filed his objections and contested the case and the Court below by its order dated 18. 10. 1997 has allowed the application filed by the plaintiff/1st respondent herein and the sale of the suit 'b' schedule property held on 19. 9. 97 was set aside. It is that order, the correctness of which is questioned in the present crp. ( 3 ) IT is contended that the Court below having allowed the auction to be conducted on the terms proposed by the plaintiff, ought not to have set aside the auction sale. The application to set aside the sale is not maintainable in law in as much as the auction sale was conducted and held on the agreed terms. The question of review or amending the terms after the conclusion of the sale is illegal. The sale should not have been re-opened as the same amounted to final adjudication of the proceedings. Even otherwise, the Court below has failed in not holding the enquiry in view of the rival contentions of the parties. The Court below ought to have given permission to deposit as the 1st defendant committed a default. The finding of the court below that the petitioner has not deposited 25% of the bid amount as required under Order 21, Rule 84 of CPC is erronious and setting aside the sale under the above provisions of law is not proper, as the said provision is not applicable to the facts of this case, particularly when the plaintiff himself has proposed the terms of the sale which has been accepted by the Court and acted upon by all the parties, the plaintiff has estopped from making such application to set aside the sale. ( 4 ) MR. Uday Holla, counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the terms of sale which was submitted by plaintiff and the respondent did not raise any objection to the terms proposed. The order of the Court below was that "the sale of the suit schedule property is ordered to be held as per the terms of the sale claimed by the parties". The terms of the sale as filed by the petitioner padmanabha Acharya is as follows:- 1. The order of the Court below was that "the sale of the suit schedule property is ordered to be held as per the terms of the sale claimed by the parties". The terms of the sale as filed by the petitioner padmanabha Acharya is as follows:- 1. That the immoveable property which is the subject matter of the auction sale is the non-residential premises bearing door no. 12-5-462 and 12-5-466 in total measuring 1236 sq. ft and comprised in T. S. No: 995 (part) R. S. No:325 situated to the east of the car street cross road. 2. The upset price is fixed at Rs. 2,00,000/ -. 3. Successful bidder should deposit 25% of the auction money into Court on the date of the auction sale, 4. The successful bidder should deposit the balance of auction money into Court within 15 days rom the date of auction sale. ( 5 ) IF the successful bidder fails to deposit the auction money into Court within the time mentioned above, the auction in his favour stands cancelled and the next immediate highest bidder will be declared as the successful bidder and he shall deposit the auction money into Court within 15 days from the date the first successful bidder commits default:. For this terms, the Advocate for other side submitted that the sale may be held on the terms proposed (as above ). One other Advocate has no objection for additional terms proposed. Consequently, the court passed the following order:- the sale of suit schedule property is ordered to be held as per the terms of the s'ale filed by the parties and the party in possession of the property (other than the tenants) shall deliver the possession to the successful bidder on depositing the entire amount. " 5. Again an additional terms was proposed as para 6 of the terms of sale as follows:- "if the second highest bidder fails to depos. " 5. Again an additional terms was proposed as para 6 of the terms of sale as follows:- "if the second highest bidder fails to depos. 't the auction money within 15 days from the date of default of the first highest bidder, the auction in favour of the second highest bidder will be cancelled and the third highest bidder will be declared the successful bidder, and he should deposit the auction money within 15 days of the date of default of the second highest bidder and if the 3rd highest bidder fails to deposit the auction money within 15 days of date of default of the second highest bidder, the auction in favour of the 3rd highest bidder also will stand cancelled. " in view of the proposal of the terms accepted by the parties, it is not proper for the Court to set aside auction which was conducted as per the terms of sale. ( 6 ) AN affidavit filed on behalf of the Smt. Susheela Acharya the LR of R2, it is averred that the late Venkatacharya was carrying the business in the said schedule property ever since the year 1945 i. e. , for more than 50 years. The business which is even now being carried on in the suit property is the sale of coconut oil, wheat flour, maida and other allied products were sold in the suit property and they were manufactured in the adjacent factory which is within 200 ft. from the suit property. Late U. Venkatesha Acharya tried to raise funds immediately after the auction held on 19,9. 1997 and he approached M/s. Lamina Leasing and Finance Pvt. Ltd and also m/s. Mahalakshmi Beedi works for financial assistance. But he could not raise the funds. The applicant or his sons respondents 2{b) and 2 (c) were not consulted before offering the highest bid by late u. Venkateshacharya. Meanwhile, on the very next day of the auction, the first defendant/1 st respondent made an application to set aside the auction hetd alleging mainly that the bids offered was by collusion between the petitioner S. N. Acharya and the 2nd respondent late u. Venkatesha Acharya. Sri U. Padmanabha Acharya had not deposited the bid amount. Meanwhile, on the very next day of the auction, the first defendant/1 st respondent made an application to set aside the auction hetd alleging mainly that the bids offered was by collusion between the petitioner S. N. Acharya and the 2nd respondent late u. Venkatesha Acharya. Sri U. Padmanabha Acharya had not deposited the bid amount. The applicant who is the widow of late u. Venkatesha Acharya, who is aged about 70 years, could not carry on and continue the said business if she is deprived of the suit property wherein the business was carried on for the past more than 50 years. The Market value of the suit property according to the 1st respondent, is not 4. 5 lakhs. Admittedly, either Sri S. N. Acharya or the first respondent Padmanabha Acharya has not been carrying on business in the suit property at any point of time. The applicant Smt. Susheela Acharya will be put to irreparable loss and injury if she is deprived of the suit property. The applicant requires the suit property to carry on the said business which has been existing and established since 1945. As aforesaid, the market value can only be Rs. 4. 5 lakhs and 12 lakhs and it cannot be more than rs. 12 lakhs as aforesaid. ( 7 ) IT is also contended that she has deposited 25% of the bid amount, namely Rs. 10 lakhs into Court. ( 8 ) IN the objection statement filed by the son of Padmanabha Acharya it is submitted that setting aside the sale is correct. The petitioner is the second highest bidder, the 2nd respondent u. Venkatesha Acharya suddenly raised the bid amount to Rs. 40 lakhs and deposited 25% amount namely Rs. 10 lakhs. The submission that the terms and condition of the sale was agreed to by all the parties to the Final Decree Proceedings and the parties are bound by the terms and conditions so agreed by the parties is not true and correct. It is further averred by the said Prabhakara Acharya that he was personally present in the Court on the date of auction and he had instructed his Advocate to bid on his behalf. Auction proceedings commenced with the upset price of Rs. 2 lakhs, petitioner made a bid for 2. It is further averred by the said Prabhakara Acharya that he was personally present in the Court on the date of auction and he had instructed his Advocate to bid on his behalf. Auction proceedings commenced with the upset price of Rs. 2 lakhs, petitioner made a bid for 2. 5 lakhs, 2nd respondent made a bid for 3 lakhs, he made a bid for 4 lakhs, the petitioner immediately made a bid for 4. 5 lakhs and all of a sudden, the 2nd respondent made a bid for Rs. 40 lakhs. Therefore, there is no opportunity for the 1st respondent to offer his bid because 2nd respondent suddenly raised the bid amount to Rs. 40 lakhs and according to him, the market value of the property is not more than 12 lakhs. He further claimed that the petitioner and 2nd respondent have colluded in order to knock away the property and for nominal value depriving the 1st respondent of its right to have legitimate claim in such property. Sale cannot be conducted in terms of the sale filed by the parties. Under the terms of the sale, if highest bidder failed to deposit auctioned money into Court within 15 days, the auction stands cancelled and the 2nd highest bidder will be declared as bidder, but such a procedure cannot be followed if two sharers collude. In this case, petitioner 2nd respondent herein colluded and the bid was deliberately and intentionally raised to 40 lakhs with an intention to play fraud upon the 1st respondent. It is further contended that the 2nd respondent offered highest bid of rs. 40 lakhs with an idea that he will not deposit the balance auction amount within the time and in that case, the petitioner will make the claim over the suit property after deposit of the nominal 'amount of r. s 4. 5 lakhs and thereafter/ the petitioner will transfer the suit property in the name of the 2nd respondent. In fact, in between 4. 5 lakhs and Rs. 40 lakhs. 5 lakhs and thereafter/ the petitioner will transfer the suit property in the name of the 2nd respondent. In fact, in between 4. 5 lakhs and Rs. 40 lakhs. It is stage managed by the petitioner and the 2nd respondent in such way that the 2nd respondent will not deposit the auction money into Court and 2nd respondent will see that the auction in his favour stands canceled and the petitioner herein who is the 2nd highest bidder who has been set up by the 2nd respondent will be declared as highest bidder and the property knocked down in his favour. Thus, the CRP was resisted by the 1st respondent. ( 9 ) THE 2nd respondent died after the filing of the CRP and his L. Rs were brought on record as respondents 2 (a) to 2 (c) in this crp, ( 10 ) ADDITIONAL evidence was sought to be produced by the petitioner by producing the market value of the property from the sub-Registrar Office guidelines and it is contended that in car street area, the property rate is estimated at Rs. 200a for one cent at the relevant point of time. An application was also filed in I. A. 5 by the legal representatives of the 2nd respondent contending that she is entitled to the property under Section 3 (i) of the partition Act and direction may be issued to fix the value of the shares of the petitioner and 1st respondent which shall be paid by the applicants. ( 11 ) HEARD the respective counsel. ( 12 ) IT is also seen that the 2nd respondent while he was alive had applied to two Finance Companies for financial assistance to enable them to give the balance of money to deposit the same into court. The company also offered to sanction subject to some clarification which was provided for by the 2nd Despondent on 26. 9. 1997. Again a reply was given on 27. 9. 1997 which was followed by the letter dated. 30. 9. 1997. It appears to have consulted the other financial Company also for the purpose of Financial Assistance. ( 13 ) THE question to be decided in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the setting aside the sale by the Final Decree Court is proper? 9. 1997 which was followed by the letter dated. 30. 9. 1997. It appears to have consulted the other financial Company also for the purpose of Financial Assistance. ( 13 ) THE question to be decided in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the setting aside the sale by the Final Decree Court is proper? ( 14 ) RELIANCE was placed upon the dictum of Supreme Court in MANILAL MOHANLAL SHAH AND OTHERS vs SARDAR SAVED ahmed SAVED MAHMAD AND ANOTHER to the following principles:-"the provisions of Order 21 Rules 84, 85 and 86 requiring the deposit of 25% of the purchase money immediately, on the person being declared as purchaser, such person not being a decree holder, and the payment of balance within 15 days, of the sale are mandatory and upon non-compliance with thosse provisions there is no sale at all. The rules do not contemplate that there can be any sale in favour of a stranger purchaser without depositing 25% of the purchase money in the first instance and the balance within 15 days. When there is no sale within the contemplation of these rules, there can be no question of material irregularity in the conduct of the sale. Non payment of the price on the part of the defaulting purchaser renders the sale proceedings as complete nullity. The very fact that the Court is bound to resell the property (Ruie-86) in the event of a default shows that the previous proceedings for sale are completely wiped out as if they do not exist in the eye of law. "the dictum in S. V. KANAKARAJA vs Vijaya BANK is relied upon to the following effect:-"order 21 Rule 84 (1) CPC require that the auction purchaser shall pay immediately after such declaration a deposit of 21 percent on the amount of his purchase money to the officer or other person conducting the sale. It further says that the in default of such deposit, the property shall forthwith be resold. The later. portion reading as "the property shall forthwith be re-sold, connotes that no fresh issue of fresh sale proclamation is necessary. Without any fresh issuance of the sale proclamation, the Court shall have to proceed to re-sell- the property. If the resale is not to be held on the very same day and if it is to be held on the next day or on some other dates. Without any fresh issuance of the sale proclamation, the Court shall have to proceed to re-sell- the property. If the resale is not to be held on the very same day and if it is to be held on the next day or on some other dates. The very object of holding a re-sale forthwith might be frustrated, because the bidders in sufficient numbers might not appear before the Court at all for participating in the sale. If the later portion of Order 21, rule 84 (1) is read along with the word Immediately' occurring in the first part, it only means that 1/4th of the bid amount should be deposited on the very same day when the highest bid is accepted by the Court. Any other interpretation to the contra would cause immense injury or loss to the judgment debtors because his property is sold for a song if the property is sold on some other day. The Court cannot give time to the Auction purchaser to deposit 1/4th of the bid amount, because Rule 84 as held by the Supreme Court is a mandatory one. Even if the parties to the execution consent to grant time to the Auction purchaser, the court has no jurisdiction even by consent of parties to give time to the Auction Purchaser to deposit 1/4th of the bid amount. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court is that even if the amount was tendered by the Auction Purchaser and it was not accepted, the provisions of Rule-84 wilt not help the Auction purchaser in the matter, because the Court has no jurisdiction to extend the time for the payment of 1/4th of the bid amount; further that when the sale is a nullity, the Court is bound to re-sell the property and the Court oan do so even suo motu without being moved by one of the parties to the execution. . . . . . The Court has no jurisdiction to refuse to accept the bid amount if offered and if the Court has refused to accept, it will not amount to compliance with the mandatory requirement of Rule 84. . . . . . The Court has no jurisdiction to refuse to accept the bid amount if offered and if the Court has refused to accept, it will not amount to compliance with the mandatory requirement of Rule 84. "the dictum of ROSILY MATHEW AND OTHERS vs JOSEPH was relied to the, following effect:-"courts can adopt a procedure to settle the dispute 'extra cursus curiae', provided the parties to the dispute have either consented to the said course or have acquiesced in the said procedure. A party thereto thereafter cannot turn round and say that the Court alone is to be blamed for adopting the said procedure. This is based on the doctrine of estoppel. But that does not mean that the Court by deviating from the usual procedure (Cutsus Curiae) can assume jurisdiction which it does not possess, it is equally well established that if the Court with the consent of the parties or with their acquiescence departs from the usual course of procedure (governing the case) and decides a question of fact, the said decision is neither appealable nor reviewable. The parties are bound by the order which in the circumstances of the case partakes of the character of a consent decree. "another dictum in M. PANCHAKSHARAPPA vs SHIVA yogeshwara COTTON PRESS CO. , OF DAVANAGERE is for the proposition that an express order dispensing with requirement of depositing the twentyfive percent of the purchase money on conclusion of the sale is not necessary when the purchaser is the decree-holder himself. The Dictum in BARATAM SATYANARAYANA vs BARATAM kantharao AND OTHERS, the following dictum has been laid down:-"upon a sale among co-sharers of joint property under Section 3 of the Partition Act failure to deposit the bid amount would not require the property to be re-sold by invoking Order 21 Rule 84 cpc. The Court can extend time for depositing amount without reference to the provisions of Order 21 Rule 84 CPC. It is true that in the case of public auction conducted under the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, the conditions for deposit of the auction amount are absolute and the statute itself provides for re-sale on default. But the sale of joint property under section 2 and Section 3 are different. Section 2 refers to sale of the entire property and so does section 6 which expressly refers to Section 2. But the sale of joint property under section 2 and Section 3 are different. Section 2 refers to sale of the entire property and so does section 6 which expressly refers to Section 2. It is true that section 7 dealing with procedure does not refer to Section 2 expressly but it is clear that it refers only to sales under Section 2. This is clear from the opening words of Section 7, which use the words' save as herein-before provided'. Under Section 3, an application is filed thereunder in a proceeding for sale of property under Section 2 and the co-sharer who makes the application under Section 3 offers to buy the 'shares' of the others and there is also no question of his having to buy his own share. He need not buy what he already owns, Section 3 is a self contained provisions and itself speaks of the method of valuation of the shares of others and the sale of those shares. In fact Section 4 (2) refers to Section 3{2) and describes it as a provision containing the "procedure" for sale. It is therefore clear that section 7 does not apply to sale under Section 3 and also under section 4. Therefore, the provisions of Order 21, Rule 84 CPC which apply to sales under Section 2, cannot apply to sales under section 3 and also under Section 4- In case of sales under section 3 and also under Section 4, the sale of the shares of other shareholders in favour of the shareholder applying for purchase, is governed by the self-contained procedure in Section 3 and Section 4 only and by such 'necessary or proper directions' as the Court may grant and not by the procedure in Section 7 i. e. the original side Rules of the High Court or the procedure in order 21 CPC or Rule 9 of the rules made under the Partition act or Rules 193 to 205 of the Civil Rules of Practice. " ( 15 ) THE un-reported decision of the Supreme Court in a S. E. KUPPUSAMY vs MRS. AGNES MIRANDA AND OTHERS was relied upon. The above "supreme Court case is one where in pursuance of the preliminary decree, a Commissioner was appointed to decide apportion the property into four lots. The sale took place on 31. 3. 91. " ( 15 ) THE un-reported decision of the Supreme Court in a S. E. KUPPUSAMY vs MRS. AGNES MIRANDA AND OTHERS was relied upon. The above "supreme Court case is one where in pursuance of the preliminary decree, a Commissioner was appointed to decide apportion the property into four lots. The sale took place on 31. 3. 91. The learned Single Judge of the High Court taking stock of the situation apparently did not want to interfere as he observed "normally I would have refused to interfere with the action in question". Since the prices had risen manifold, the property in question need be resold. The learned Judge has set aside the sale. In fact, the Supreme Court observed:- "it is not to be forgotten that Court Sales have a soleminity of their own as otherwise if they are to be disturbed on flimsy grounds, no one would come forward to block his or her money in such sales and buy litigation, more so in a partition suit. It is no solace to the successful bidder that on a re-auction he too would have the liberty to participate in the auction We thus view that the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court was erroneous. " ( 16 ) IN S. E. MAKUDAM MAHOMMAD vs TV. MAHOMMAD SHEIKABDUL KADIR AND ANOTHER the following dictum has been laid down:-"where a party invites the Court to adopt a procedure which is not contemplated by the Civil Procedure Code and is in fact a procedure extra cursum curia, he cannot afterwards turn round and say that the Court is to be blamed for adopting the very procedure which he invited the Court to follow. 1 he doctrine of estoppel would apply to him. The judgment of the Court is in the nature of an arbiter's award, and as a general rule, no appeal from it would lie. Moreover where both the parties agree to the particular procedure being followed the decree passed in the suit must be deemed to be a consent decree and as such it is not open to either party to appeal from it. Moreover where both the parties agree to the particular procedure being followed the decree passed in the suit must be deemed to be a consent decree and as such it is not open to either party to appeal from it. "again in BAMBRANNA GUDDAPPA RAI AND OTHERS vs ramanna BANTA AND OTHERS, the following dictum is laid down:- "where the advocate appearing on both sides submitted a joint memo to the Court, the advocates alone affixing their signatures to the joint statement and it is not disputed that the counsel signing the joint memo had instructions to do the same, the joint memo must be deemed to have been signed as it were by the parties themselves though actually their signatures do not appear on the face of it. When the parties agree to abide by the decision of the Court their intention was to obey or to comply with it without questioning its correctness or validity. It is not open to anyone of them later on, to say that the decision is not binding on him. The real position is that the Judge is made a quasi arbitrator though not bound by any of the inhibitious of the Arbitration Act. " ( 17 ) FROM the above dictums, the following principles emerged:-i) The principles of Order 21, Rule 84, 85 86 are mandatory, any violation will result in cancellation of the sale. ii) It is equally pointed out that once the parties wants to abide by particular law of auction sale and agreed and to have particular method adopted, it is not open to them to go back and have a different view on the sale and try to attack the sale in the manner which has been done. ( 18 ) WHILE the Civil Revision Petition has been taken up for hearing, I made an offer to the parties, if they so desire" to have another auction before this Court, so that highest bidder can get the property. But that was not agreed to by the defendant. Then, I wanted to know the value of the property and ! wanted the parties to file a memo regarding the value thereof. Excepting the first respondent's legal representative who filed a memo stating that the present market value of the property is Rs. 16 lakhs and they are ready and prepared to purchase the property for Rs. Then, I wanted to know the value of the property and ! wanted the parties to file a memo regarding the value thereof. Excepting the first respondent's legal representative who filed a memo stating that the present market value of the property is Rs. 16 lakhs and they are ready and prepared to purchase the property for Rs. 16 lakhs, no other memo was filed. ( 19 ) IT is true that the dicta of the above cases referred at supragoes to show that the understanding arrived at between the parties with reference to the conduct of the sale should be given preference to another rule or regulation, as after all in equity and justice, the will of the parties should prevail and when they choose to adopt a mode of disposal of their case, there should not be any modification on later part of time. It is also true that Order 21 Rule 84, 85, 86 contemplate the procedure and violation of such procedure would result in setting aside the sale. This position of law cannot be changed or cannot be questioned, as there is always a stage with each cases should be decided on its merit. In this case, the terms are proposed by one of the Advocates and no objection was given to such proposal subject to additional terms to bind the parties. All the terms shall be made explicit and made or corrected by getting the signatures of the Advocates as well. This was not done. The purpose of law is to serve justice with the balance of equity on hand and good conciousness in the mind. The law is not a rigid rod that can mean no justice for real sufferer in equity. The purpose of auction between the parties in respect of the family property is to procure the maximum price and at the same time retaining the property within the purview of the family. ( 20 ) THERE were three brothers, one of whom is unfortunately dead. One brother offered Rs. 40 lakhs, another offered Rs. 4,5 lakhs and another 4 lakhs. It is true that the Supreme Court in the latest un- reported judgment referred at supra restricted The parties to the understanding and do not want them to over steps their limits. ( 20 ) THERE were three brothers, one of whom is unfortunately dead. One brother offered Rs. 40 lakhs, another offered Rs. 4,5 lakhs and another 4 lakhs. It is true that the Supreme Court in the latest un- reported judgment referred at supra restricted The parties to the understanding and do not want them to over steps their limits. But in this case, fraud is alleged and the collussion is spoken by one party in particular fraud and collusion un-settled the whole episode. Equally, there is a vast difference of nearly 36 lakhs in the price. Certainly, it cannot be simply ignored and the second person be allowed to knock away the family property, depriving the family of a minimum Rs. 16 lakhs. ( 21 ) A person who wants to bid is expected to make arrangements for the money as soon as the bid is made. In this case an attempt has been made by the deceased brother to arrange for the money soon after the bid by approaching Finance companies to show his bonafide and he has even deposited 1/4th of the bid amount namely rs. 10 lakhs, which is certainly more than the offer made by the next highest bidder which is Rs. 4. 5 lakhs. Therefore, confirming the sale at Rs. 4. 5 lakhs is a clear case of injustice. The Courts have been always for rendering justice and also equities to parties. ( 22 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, a memo has been filed raising the offer toeven at Rs. 16 lakhs. If that be the case, it is quite unfair if not unjust to direct the acceptance of Rs. 4. 5 lakhs as the basic price for the property. ( 23 ) IN the light of the offer now made for Rs. 16 lakhs, while confirming the order of the Trial Court, I direct She trial Court to again auction the property amongst the three, fixing the minimum of such price at Rs. Sixteen Lakhs. If nobody participate or ready to offer more than Sixteen Lakhs, then, the offer of Rs. Sixteen Lakhs shall be accepted as a fair price for the property. Subject to the above direction, while confirming the order of the executing Court, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Sixteen Lakhs. If nobody participate or ready to offer more than Sixteen Lakhs, then, the offer of Rs. Sixteen Lakhs shall be accepted as a fair price for the property. Subject to the above direction, while confirming the order of the executing Court, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. ( 24 ) THE Trial Court shall fix the time for auction after giving noticeto the' parties and dispose of the matter within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and records. --- *** --- .