RAMESH MADHAV BAPAT, J.

( 1 ) THE judgment-debtors in E. A. No. 109/ 1995 in E. P. No. 35/ 1994 in O. S. No. 954/ 1989 on the file of the learned iv Additional Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad filed the present appeal.

( 2 ) IT appears that the 1st respondent filed the suit for recovery of certain amount. The suit was decreed. Later, it filed E. P. No. 35/1994 for execution of the decree by sale of the suit schedule property. In the auction, 2nd respondent became the highest bidder. But, she did not deposit 25 per cent of the auction amount as required under order 21 Rules 84 to 86 C. P. C. Therefore, appellants-judgment debtors filed E. A. No. 109/1995 to set aside the sale. That application was rejected. Hence, the judgment debtors filed the present appeal.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants pointed out that it is mandatory under order 21 Rules 84 to 86 C. P. C. on the part of the auction purchaser to deposit 25 per cent of the purchase money into the Court forthwith, failing which the sale has to be set aside. In support of his contention, he relied upon a Ruling in Manlilal Mohanlal Shah v. Sardar Sayed Ahmed Sayed Mahmad1 wherein it is held as follows:"the provisions o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document