Judgment :- I.P. MUKERJI, J. 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. 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 particles. 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. 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. Now, on 28th September, 2011 this sum was duly paid by the plaintiff. On that day itself the application came up for hearing before the court. The court made it explicit that the auction would be held in court to accept the higher offer. Now, on 28th September, 2011 this sum was duly paid by the plaintiff. On that day itself the application came up for hearing before the court. The plaintiff increased his offer to Rs.26,50,000/-. The Barals could increase theirs to Rs.26,00,000/- only. By an order passed on 28th September, 2011 sale was confirmed in favour of the plaintiff provided he paid the balance consideration of Rs.21,00,000/- by 6th November, 2011. If it did not the earnest deposit would stand forfeited and the sale would be confirmed in favour of the Barals subject to their paying the balance consideration. On 31st October, 2011 this application was filed by the plaintiff for extension of time to make that payment. 3rd November, 2011 arrived but the application could not be taken up by the court. The court would remain closed from 4th to 7th November, 2011. If the balance payment was not made by 6th of November, 2011 the earnest deposit would stand forfeited. Thereupon, the sale would be confirmed in favour of the Barals. The plaintiff became very apprehensive. This application was mentioned out of turn in my court on 3rd November, 2011. This court passed an order that status quo should be maintained by the Commissioner with regard to forfeiture of the earnest. On 8th November, 2011 this order was extended till disposal of this application. Two appeals were preferred by the Barals from the order before the division bench presided over by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. The grievance was with regard to my order directing status quo with regarding to the earnest deposit. The Hon’ble appeal court by its order dated 28th November, 2011, observed that it would not be proper for the court to entertain the appeal during pendency of the application by the plaintiff for extension of time to make the earnest deposit. The appeal was disposed of accordingly with a request to me to hear out the application expeditiously. The intending purchasers were allowed by that court to deposit the balance consideration with the Commissioner of Partition, without prejudice. It is submitted that this amount has been deposited by them with the Commissioner. It was made explicit by the Barals that the above deposit was being made to show their bonafides. The offered amount was Rs.26,50,000/-. The intending purchasers were allowed by that court to deposit the balance consideration with the Commissioner of Partition, without prejudice. It is submitted that this amount has been deposited by them with the Commissioner. It was made explicit by the Barals that the above deposit was being made to show their bonafides. The offered amount was Rs.26,50,000/-. The earnest money deposited by the plaintiff was Rs.5,50,000/-. The remaining consideration is Rs.21,00,000/-. The plaintiff had brought to court a bank draft for Rs.15,00,000/-. It was contended on his behalf that since he was buying the property in which he had a 1/8th share, he should be given credit for Rs.3,21,250/- representing the proportionate value of his share. He was in a position to pay the balance consideration within two days from that day. As far as the adjustment of Rs.3,21,250/- is concerned, I am afraid, I cannot accede to the prayer of the plaintiff. This prayer ought to have been made to the learned judge passing the order disposing of the application of the first defendant on 28th September, 2011. Such prayer was not made. According to that order the plaintiff was required to pay Rs.21,00,000/- by the date specified in that order. That part of the order regarding fixation of consideration and order for sale has in my opinion attained finality. But in any order for sale, the court retains the power to implement the order by extending the time and so on, for the ends of justice. This application is for that purpose only. Hence, this court is not in a position to make any alteration of the substantive part of the order. As far as the other part of the plaintiff’s prayer is concerned, I do take into account that the plaintiff is a co-owner, in possession of the property. He has paid Rs.5,50,000/- as earnest deposit and has brought a bank draft for Rs.15,00,000/- to court. No other co-owner has come forward to buy the property. Even considering that the plaintiff is not ready now to pay the balance consideration, I am prepared to exercise my discretion in concluding the sale in favour of the plaintiff because he is a co-owner in possession of the property and furthermore is in a position to pay now a very substantial part of the consideration leaving a very small part outstanding. On the other hand the intending purchasers are outsiders. On the other hand the intending purchasers are outsiders. But, I also take into account that these intending purchasers, the Barals, made an earnest deposit of Rs.5,50,000/- after the advertisement was published and deposited the balance consideration with the Commissioner as permitted by the appeal court. So, some compensation has to be paid to them by the plaintiff for depriving them use of their money. Under those circumstances I dispose of this application by the following order. (a) The Commissioner of Partition will conclude the sale in favour of the plaintiff by executing a proper conveyance in his favour, at the expense of the plaintiff provided he pays the entire balance consideration of Rs.21,00,000/- within ten days from date. Such conveyance should be executed in favour of the plaintiff as expeditiously as possible preferably within one month of receiving the balance consideration. (b) The above execution of conveyance will also be conditional upon the payment by the plaintiff to Debasish Baral and Mrs. Priyanka Baral, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- within ten days from date on account of interest and costs. (c) The earnest money and balance consideration paid by the Barals will be returned to them by the Commissioner of Partition within seven days of conclusion of sale in favour of the plaintiff. (d) If there is any default by the plaintiff, the Commissioner will forthwith execute the conveyance in favour of the Barals in terms of the default clause contained in the order dated 28th September, 2011, at their expense. (e) The order dated 28th September, 2011 is modified to the above extent only. The above extension of time is peremptory. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. Later: Learned counsel on behalf of the intending purchasers prays for stay of operation of this judgment and order. Considering the circumstances, let the Commissioner of Partition not execute any conveyance for a period of two weeks from date. Commissioner of Partition and all parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order upon the usual undertakings.