M.L. MEHTA, J.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 11th September 2012 of Additional District Judge (ADJ) passed in Suit No. 149/2008, whereby he had accepted the bid of Rs.156.00 crore of M/s. Bharti (RBM) Holdings Private Limited (Respondent No. 8), and declined to consider the offer of Rs.165.00 crore of the petitioner’s, a co-sharer in the subject property.

2. The disputes between the parties have further undergone extensive litigation since from the passing of preliminary decree of partition as back as on 8th May 1980. Vide this decree, the property, which continued to be in the possession of the petitioner, was directed to be divided amongst the co-sharers of the family. On the change of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court, the case was transferred to the Court of ADJ. As property could not be divided by metes and bounds, the same was directed to be disposed by auction. The petitioner challenged this order vide CM(M) 1549/2007, and which came to be dismissed by this Court on 30th November 2007, observing that the petitioner could participate in the auction and submit his bid. This was challenged by him in SLP which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 21st January 2008. The learned ADJ vide order dated 26th March 2008, fixed the revised reserve price of the property at Rs.140.00 crore. Vide the subsequent order of 14th August 2008, the ADJ fixed modalities of the auction sale of the property in the following manner:

a. that bids should be in sealed cover and accompanied by a Demand Draft of 10% of the bid amount as earnest money.

b. the highest bidder shall deposit the next 15%, so as to make it 25% within a period of 15 days, from the date of announcement of the highest bidder

c. the balance bid amount i.e. 75%, would be deposited by the successful bidder within 45 days from the date of deposit of the 15% of the bid amount

d. within 15 days of depositing the 15%, the auctioneer shall take possession of the property and hold the same with himself pending the receipt of the balance 75%

e. if the parties decline to vacate the property, the commissioner was empowered to get it vacated and keep possession of the same as a receiver.

3. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 14th August 2008 vide CM No. 1170/2008, which came to be dismissed by this Court on 16th October, 2008 observing as under:

“Since the amount of reserve price involved in the case in the auction of the property is Rs. 140.00 Crores, no bidder would come forward unless he is assured of vacant possession of the property. He can be asked to pay 75% of the balance amount only after showing the vacant possession of the property. Since the investment to be done by the highest bidder would be a heavy investment, I consider that the modalities set out by the Court below are in consonance with the nature of the auction.”

4. The petitioner carried the matter in SLP(C) 29116/2008 to the Supreme Court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 5th December 2008 recording the order of ADJ as that of the High Court as equitable and just and not suffering from any patent legal infirmity.

5. Being not contented, the petitioner filed an application for revision of the reserve price of Rs.140.00 crore contending that vide notification dated 15th November 2011, the Government of Delhi had revised circle rates of the properties. The same was dismissed by the ADJ vide his order dated 24th February 2011. The review petition against this order was also dismissed by the ADJ vide his order of 27th February 2011, and the matter carried by the petitioner to this Court, against this order, vide CM(M) 492/2012 was also dismissed by this Court on 02.05.2012 observing thus:

“The reserve price which has been fixed of the suit property at Rs.1.40 crores is not the final price which the property will fetch; at the time of fixing this reserve price, the Court had also taken into account the prevailing circl