( 1 ) WHEN we started dictating the judgment, Mr. Amar Dave, learned advocate insisted that the Court should accommodate his client so that the amount can be paid. It was known to the learned advocate that his client made a statement before the Court earlier that he shall bring draft of Rs. 1. 5 crores. But he failed and thereafter the Court proceeded with the matter. After the hearing was concluded, the Court could not proceed with the judgment because the next two days were assigned for admission only. Yesterday the matter could not be taken up and today, learned advocate is requesting the Court that again the Court should adjourn the matter and should give some time and the Court should inquire from his party to find out his genuineness. The learned advocate should know that on several occasions in past, time was granted. The Committee granted permission to participate in the auction. But he has failed everywhere. In our opinion, when the Court is proceeding with the matter, interruption is caused by making a show that the original petitioner is willing to make payment and today, he is not willing to pay draft of Rs. 1. 5 crores and therefore, request of the learn