published. In its letter dated 2nd March, 2016, the appellant did not object to the valuation. The auction sale notice dated 12th February, 2016 was duly published in the newspapers and did bear reflection of the valuation of the property put up for sale with the upset price, yet, the appellant remained in slumber. It has never been the case of the appellant that it had no notice/knowledge of such notice. We have, thus, failed to comprehend as to what prevented the appellant, if at all it was aggrieved by the undervaluation of the property as shown in the notice, to take immediate recourse to available legal remedies to stall the process. The explanation that the appellant was busy in obtaining information after the auction sale was conducted for launching an attack on the process of sale could be correct on facts but by that, precious time was lost. Law is well-settled that a writ court does not encourage petitions from indolent, tardy and lethargic litigants; the writ court comes to the aid of a litigant who approaches it with promptitude and before accrual of third-party rights. Not having approached the High Court before accrual of a right in favour of the respondent no.6, we hold that on facts and in the circumstances, it was not open to the appellant to question the auction sale process in question after finalisation of the sale in favour of the respondent no.6. That possession of the property had not been taken by the appellant or that its name was not entered in the revenue records are of no significance having regard to the discernible conduct of the appellant in allowing things to drift to its detriment. We are, thus, of the
