(delivering the judgment of the Court): As the result of unhappy differences between the registered co-proprietors of a piece of land, an application was made by one of them for the sale of the land by public auction. A consent order was made in terms on June 19, 1973. It was duly drawn up and perfected. In the consequential summons for directions, as amended, among the terms and conditions set for the sale, a reserve price, as is usual in such cases, was fixed. There was liberty to apply.

The sale by public auction proved abortive. We do not know the reason, but in all likelihood, the reserve price was set too high.

Next, the first respondent died. Both the second and third respondents and the applicant applied separately to substitute the executors of the deceased owner's estate in the action. The second and third respondents desired to carry on with the auction. Alternatively, they asked to sell their undivided shares by private treaty. The applicant asked, more generally, that the public auction be withdrawn and the parties be at liberty to sell their shares by private treaty.

At the hearing of the two applications, Mr. Ariarajah, counsel for the sec