Judgment Ravi R. Tripathi J.—Present petitioners No. 1/1 to 1/4 : original plaintiffs No. 1/1 to 1/4; Nos. 2/1 to 2/4 : Original defendants No. 9/1 to 9/4; Nos. 3/1 to 3/8 : original defendants No. 10/1 to 10/8; and Nos. 4/1 to 4/6 : original defendants No. 14/1, 14/2, 14/5 ti 14/8, are before this Court being aggrieved by an order passed below Exhibits 711, 712, 719, 720 in Civil Suit No. 4149 of 1978 by the City Civil Court No. 21, Ahmedabad by order dated 17th March 2010; and also by order dated 23rd March 2010 passed below exhibit 788 in Civil Suit No. 4149 of 1978 by the same learned Judge. The petition was then amended as permitted by the court by order dated 26.04.2010 praying that order dated 12.04.2010 passed below exh.793 and 794; order dated 13.04.2010 passed below exh.795; order dated 13.04.2010 passed below applications-exh.797 and 798 by the learned Judge, City Civil Court No. 22, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 4149 of 1978 be quashed ans set aside. 2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Sanjanwala for the petitioners and Mr. Gandhi for the respondent-auction purchaser. At this juncture, learned Advocate Mr. Sanjanwala submitted that the single petition is filed challenging the orders passed qua Ahmedabad property as well as Bombay property. As purchasers of Bombay property are not before this Court he may be permitted to withdraw the petition qua Bombay property with a liberty to file a fresh petition qua Bombay property. Taking into consideration the fact that the suit was filed for partition of the family properties and Bombay property is sought to be sold for an amount of Rs. 54 lacs though the next lower bidder of Rs. 52 lacs has shown his willingness to raise the bid to Rs. 62 lacs, the court has confirmed the bid at Rs. 56 lacs. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have sentimental attachment with the property, it being the family property and they will see to it that they purchase that property for Rs. 62 lacs. The learned Advocate submitted that if that is permitted the petitioners and other respondents-family members will be benefited because, in that case instead of Rs. 56 lacks, Rs. 62 lacs will be coming to the common pool and in addition to that the petitioners will be able to retain their family property. 62 lacs. The learned Advocate submitted that if that is permitted the petitioners and other respondents-family members will be benefited because, in that case instead of Rs. 56 lacks, Rs. 62 lacs will be coming to the common pool and in addition to that the petitioners will be able to retain their family property. At this stage, the Court restrains itself from expressing any opinion on the aforesaid facts and permits the learned Advocate for the petitioner to withdraw these petitions qua the Bombay property with a liberty to file a fresh petition for Bombay property. 3. So far as Ahmedabad property is concerned, learned Advocate Mr. Sanjanwala submitted that the learned Judge without there being any valuation report on the record, fixed upset price for Ahmedabad property at Rs. 5,00,00,000/- and bids were invited. A bid was received for Rs. 6,50,00,000/-. Learned advocate Mr. Sanjanwala objected to the said being accepted and the property being sold for a sum of Rs. 6,50,00,000/-. He submitted that as per the information available with him the property is valued at Rs. 14,00,00,000/-, if it is without tenants. But even if there are tenants, it is valued at Rs. 10,99,52,000/- and odd. In light of the fact that the learned Judge fixed upset price without there being any valuation report before him order/s is/ are required to be quashed and set aside. 4. Rule. Mr. Gandhi, learned Advocate appearing for the main affected party and the main contesting party waives service of rule. At the request of Mr. Sanjanwala and with the consent of Mr. Gandhi, learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. The court below could not have proceeded with fixing up of upset price in absence of any valuation report with it. Orders are required to be quashed and they are accordingly quashed and set aside. At this juncture, it is deemed fit that the petitioners should be saddled with the expenses incurred out of the common pool for the purpose of past advertisement and also for the fresh valuation report, if any required by the court and for fresh advertisement which will be required to be issued after fixing upset price on the basis of the valuation report which may be accepted by the court below. 5. Learned advocate Mr. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Sanjanwala requested that the petitioners be permitted to submit valuation report which is already submitted before this Court. The request is granted. It will be open for the petitioners to submit the same valuation report before the court below which is placed on record here. But then, it is clarified that in the event the Court feels that a fresh valuation report is required, as in this valuation report it is mentioned that for having more scientific valuation certain more documents are required, it will be open for the court below to undertake that exercise and in the event the court decides to undertake that exercise the petitioners will have to bear the expenses for the same. 6. Learned Advocate Mr. Gandhi submitted that expenses of Rs. 83,000/- were incurred for advertising the sale of the property at the first instance and later on an amount of Rs. 57,000/- was spent for issuing another advertisement, the total of which comes to Rs. 1,40,000/-. The present petitioners are directed to deposit 50% of this amount as their share with the court below, which will go to the common pool. So far as new advertisement is concerned, the expenses for the same will be borne by the petitioners. 7. This brings the Court to issue directions with regard to the aforesaid exercise in a time frame, namely: The Court below is directed to undertake the exercise of fixing valuation of the property either with the help of present valuation report or with the help of fresh valuation report within four weeks from today. Once valuation is fixed, upset price be fixed within next one week. Advertisement be issued within two weeks thereafter. Then to proceed further and complete the entire exercise within eight weeks. At the request of the learned Advocate Mr. Gandhi, it is clarified that it will be open for the present bidder to bid in response to the new advertisement. In the event they bid in response to new advertisement an amount of Rs. 6 lacs which they have deposited will be adjusted against the amount required to be deposited under the fresh advertisement. In the event, in response to the fresh advertisement, if no higher bid than Rs. 6,50,00,000/- is received their offer will be considered in accordance with law. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. 6 lacs which they have deposited will be adjusted against the amount required to be deposited under the fresh advertisement. In the event, in response to the fresh advertisement, if no higher bid than Rs. 6,50,00,000/- is received their offer will be considered in accordance with law. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. P P P P P