IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 803 of 2001 (Old No. 1165 of 1988) Ram Gopal Rastogi S/o Ram Prakash Resident of Summer House, Annexe No. 3, Mussoorie, District Dehradun. ...…………. Appellant Versus 1. Sri J.N. Sharma Official Receiver, Dehradun. 2. Sri M.N. Mehrotra (since deceased) S/o Sri Gura Narain Mehrotra R/o Steela Cottage, The Mall, Mussoorie, District Dehradun. 3. Smt. Prem Agrawal W/o Sri Prem R/o Summer House, Kulri, Mussoorie, District Dehradun. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the appellant. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal, preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the order dated 07.10.1988, passed by the Insolvency Judge / District Judge, Dehradun, in Misc. Case No. 156 of 1986 (in Insolvency Original Suit No. 08 of 1971). 2) Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the property in question, known as Office of Summer House, Kulri, Mussoorie, District Dehradun, in possession of the Official Receiver, was put to auction in the year 1983, in insolvency proceedings and the highest bid of Rajeev Kakkar of Rs. 52,000/- was accepted. The auction purchaser made deposit of ¼ sum of the bid money where after he moved an application before the Insolvency Judge with the prayer that the sale deed may be executed in favour of his grandfather M.N. Mehrotra. Vide order dated 14.09.1983, after hearing the Official Receiver in person and counsel for the creditors, the Insolvency Judge / District Judge, Dehradun, confirmed the sale in favour of Rajeev Kakkar. The Insolvency Judge allowed the application vide its order dated 10.02.1984, and after remaining ¾ amount was deposited, the sale deed was executed in favour of the person nominated by Rajeev Kakkar. The appellant / applicant Ram Gopal Rastogi moved an application long after the confirmation of sale, in the year 1986, making an offer of Rs. 70,000/- as purchase money for the aforesaid Office of Summer House, Mussoorie, and prayed that the sale by auction confirmed in favour of Rajeev Kakkar be set aside. Learned Insolvency Judge / District Judge, Dehradun, vide impugned order dated 07.10.1988, after hearing the parties, rejected the application. Hence, this appeal. 4) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that before the auction in which Rajeev Kakkar purchased the property in question, there had been earlier an auction on 30th June 1982, in which one Satish Kumar Chhabra gave a bid of Rs. 73,000/-, but he retreated later and said auction was set aside. It is alleged by the appellant that M.N. Mehrotra, grandfather of Rajeev Kakkar, was a defaulter and could not participate himself, and in connivance with the Receiver he got the bid made through his grandson Rajeev Kakkar, and as such, the sale is illegal and liable to be set aside. 5) Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and after going through the record, this Court finds that the appellant could not gave any sufficient explanation as to why he (appellant) did not participate in the auction in which Rajeev Kakkar gave the highest bid. Apart from this, after the confirmation of sale, if anyone makes an offer higher to the bid which was accepted, merely for making higher offer (after auction), a confirmed sale cannot be set aside. It is true that in the auction in question the highest bid was of Rs. 52,000/-, but that by itself cannot be said to be a sufficient ground to set aside the confirmed sale after such a long time. The creditors were the best persons and most affected persons who were heard before the sale was confirmed. Therefore, this Court does not find any error of law in the impugned order dated 07.10.1988, passed by the Insolvency Judge / District Judge, in Misc. Case No. 156 of 1986. 6) For the reasons as discussed above, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. April 08, 2009. H. Negi