Judgment

SEN, J. :- In this special leave petition the short point involved is whether by reason of sub-r. (2) of R. 92 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the deposit required by R. 89 not having been made within thirty days from the date of sale, the application made by the judgment-debtor was not maintainable. Sub-r. (2) of R. 92 has been amended by S. 72 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 1976 by adding the words "the deposit required by that rule is made within thirty days from the date of sale", the following "Or in cases where the amount deposited under, rule 89 .......within such time as may be fixed by the Court" to prevent any controversy as to the power of the, Court to extend the time to make good the deficit. Unfortunately, the words added speak of the deficiency owing to any clerical or arithmetical mistake on the part of the depositor. The amended R. 92(2) now reads :

"92(2). Where such application is made and allowed, and where, in the case of an application under rule 89, the deposit required by that rule is made within thirty days from the date of sale, or in cases where the amount deposited under Rule 89 is found to be deficient owing to