IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2617/2008 APPEAL NO.1235/2001 AND CROSS OBJECTION NO.2/2001 IN SUIT NO.1143/1986 Hiralal Ghanshamdas Kukreja & Ors. Appellants/ Ori.Defendants Vs. Mohanlal Ghanshamdas Kukreja Respondent/ Ori.Plaintiff Mr.RaviKadam ,A.G.P.with Mr.A.A.Joshi i/b Mr.A.A.Joshi i/b L.J.Law advocate for the appellants Mr.Rakesh Kumar i/b Mr.Rajesh Chheda for respondent /applicant Mr.G.T.Mesta,Clommissioner for taking accounts, H.C.Bombay CORAM: S.B.Mhase , & Prasanna B.Varale , J.J. DATED : August,4 ,2008. P.C. Heard . This is a motion to set aside sale conducted by the Commissioner. The motion has been moved by the original plaintiff. There is a decree in his favour. However, while appeal was pending against said preliminary decree it was decided between the parties that the property in question is to be auctioned in between the plaintiff and the defendants and,therefore, the commissioner was appointed by 2 this Court. Initially there was some protraction . However, ultimately it was reflected from the order dated 19-6-2008 that the auction has to be conducted as per order passed by this Court on 28.9.2007 and further modifications by an order dated 15th April,2008 ,on Monday i.e.23rd June,2008 at 3 p.m. at the office of the Commissioner for taking accounts. It was made clear that both the parties will not raise any objection with regard to the clauses of the terms and conditions and the auction shall be conducted accordingly. Accordingly auction has been conducted. The plaintiff who has moved present motion has not participated in the auction and therefore the auction was finalised in favour of the defendants. Now the plaintiff comes before this Courts stating that sale may be set aside firstly on the ground that the title deeds were not given and shown to the plaintiff. It is an auction between the co-owners of the property .The plaintiff knows the title of the property and ,therefore, he has filed suit for partition and possession of the property. Therefore, that ground is not tenable for setting aside the sale. The plaintiff said that he has got price of Rs.30 crores , however, the commissioner' s report shows that he has not participated in the auction between the plaintiff and defendants . Hence there is no question of considering his highest bids in the property. The commissioner has performed his duties properly . The motion is without any merit. It is dismissed. (Prasanna B.Varale,J.) (S.B.Mhase, J.)