( 1 ) THE revision petitioner filed the civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure questioning the order of the Junior Civil Judge. Prathipadu in E. A. S. R. No. 3014 of 2001 in e. P. No. 45 of 1998 in O. S. No. 44 of 1995 dated 20-11-2001.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief are as follows.

( 3 ) THE revision petitioner is the auction purchaser. The petitioner participated in the above E. P. sale proceedings and became the highest bidder and the sale was knocked down for Rs. 67,000. 00 in his favour on 31-7-2001. The petitioner paid an amount of rs. 16,750/- on 31-7-2001 i. e. , 1/4th amount of Rs. 67,000. 00. It is further stated that the petitioner applied for challan for the deposit of the remaining sale consideration and for the General stamps (i. e.) N. J. Stamps and it was also stated that a specific mention was made in this regard in the application. But, however, the challan was not issued for General stamps. The petitioner also stated that he applied for challan in time and also submitted lodgment schedule. There was neither default not negligence on his part due to the reasons stated supra and the petitioner was unable to comply with the requirement of stamps under Order 21, Rule 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In such circumstances, the petitioner filed E. A. S. R. No. 3014 OF 2001 In E. P. No. 45 of 1998 in o. S. No. 44 of 1995 on the file of Junior civil Judge, Prathipadu praying for issue of challan for deposit of General stamps (i. e.) n. J. Stamps to comply with Order 21, Rule 85, C. P. C. and to pass suitable orders. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu by order dated 20-11-2001 had rejected the petition on the ground that the challan cannot be issued after the expiry of prescribed period for deposit of amount required for the sale certificate. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition is preferred.

( 4 ) ALL the respondents were served and none of them are represented by counsel.

( 5 ) THE counsel for the petitioner Sri subhash Chandra Bose had taken me through the impugned order and had contended that the learned Junior Civil Judge, prathipadu had not properly appreciated the scope and ambit of Order 21, Rule 85 and also Order 21, Rule 86 of the C. P. C. The learned counsel further submitted that the words in Order 21, Rule 85 of the C. P. C. are "the full amount of purchase-money payable shall be paid by the purchaser into Court before the Court closes on the fifteenth day from the sale of the property". The learned counsel also contended that in the present case though in the column the amount relating to the deposit of N. J. Stamps also had been specified the said amount was not deposited. Hence, in such circumstances, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu had totally erred in not exercising the discretion and not extending the time by issuing the challan. The learned counsel also submitted that at any rate even if the expression referred to supra had to be construed as amount inclusive of the deposit of amount relating to N. J. Stamps at least the learned Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu should have exercised the discretion of ordering refund of the amount which had been deposited by the petitioner/auction purchaser.

( 6 ) HEARD the learned counsel at length and perused the material available on record. The facts are already narrated above and they need not be repeated again. It is not in dispute that deposit relating to N. J. Stamps had not been made within time and the application was moved for this purpose and the same was rejected. Order 21, Rule 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows : time for payment in full of purchase money The full amount of purchase-money payable shall be paid by the purchaser into court before the Court closes on the fifteenth day from the sale of the property : provided that, in calculating the amount to be so paid into Court, the purchaser shall have the advantage of any set-off to which he