MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, CJ. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 6th September, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge with reference to the inter se bidding which was resorted to by the learned Single Judge in terms of the prayer of the counsel appearing for the parties. ( 2 ) IN this connection we may refer to the order dated 30th August, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge. A bare perusal of the said order would indicate that a preliminary decree was passed in the suit, which was filed praying for a decree of partition and determining the shares of the parties thereto. It was held that the appellant as plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share and that defendants No. 1 and 2, who are husband and wife, are jointly entitled to 1/3rd share and the balance 1/3rd share would go to the defendant No. 3. Admittedly, the defendant No. 1 is the wife of defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 1 has filed the present appeal on which we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. ( 3 ) IN the aforesaid suit after the aforesaid preliminary decree was passed, a commissioner was appointed by the court to see as to whether the property could be divided by metes and bounds. ( 4 ) THE Local Commissioner, after making necessary inquiries, submitted a report that the property could be so divided by metes and bounds, but as there were disputes amongst the parties, therefore, all the parties before the Court made a prayer and gave a suggestion that in the first instance the property be put to sale by directing the parties to bid for the same inter se. The aforesaid suggestion given by the parties was accepted by the learned Court and the date was fixed for inter se bidding. All the parties took part in the aforesaid bidding. ( 5 ) THE appellant, who is the defendant No. 1, has now taken up a stand that she did not take part in the bidding. A perusal of the order dated 6th September, 2007 would indicate that Mr. Prabhat Kumar (husband of the defendant 1) had stated before the Court that he had authority to appear on behalf of his wife. A perusal of the order dated 6th September, 2007 would indicate that Mr. Prabhat Kumar (husband of the defendant 1) had stated before the Court that he had authority to appear on behalf of his wife. In terms thereof inter se bidding was resorted to in which the bid of the defendants No. 1 and 2 was accepted and they were directed to deposit 10% of rs. 3. 70 crores, which was the highest bid. ( 6 ) AFTER making a bid and when such bid is accepted, the appellant is trying to wriggle out of the liability and the responsibility that has been cast upon her, which is not permissible. ( 7 ) WE find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.