1. Heard Smt.Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rama Krishna, appearing for Sri V.Hari Haran, learned counsel for the first respondent. The other respondents did not appear.

2. The point in this revision is whether the local amendment made by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to Rule 85 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Code) requiring the auction purchaser to deposit along with the full purchase money, the amount required for general stamp i.e., Non-Judicial Stamp paper for issuing the sale certificate can be said to have become invalid after the Code was amended by the Central Amendment Act 104 of 1976 (the Central Amendment Act).

3. If the above local amendment is held to be invalid the petitioner would succeed in the revision or else he would fail.

4. The point arises in the following circumstances. The second respondent P.Narasimhulu, who is the decree holder brought the suit O.S.No.148 of 2000 in the court of III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the third respondent/judgment debtor and obtained a money decree against him. In execution of the said decree, he filed E.P. No.93 of 2003 and the concerned immovable property of the judgment debtor was attached.

5. Subsequently, the first respondent Smt.Y.Suvarna filed claim petition under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code but she was unsuccessful even in this court also and that became final. Smt.Manjari based upon this fact has argued that the first respondent has no locus standi to oppose this revision. It can be said that she is technically right but as the counsel for the first respondent cited certain decisions which are helpful in deciding the point he has also been heard in the matter.

6. Now reverting back to the facts in the revision, the property which is a house property situated at Hyderabad was brought for sale on 23.7.2004. The petitioner became the highest bidder and the sale was knocked down in his favour and he deposited the entire purchase money within the time stipulated in accordance with Rule 85 of Order XXI of the Code. This is not in dispute.

7. It may however be noted that according to the local amendment which was earlier made by the High Court of Madras in 1944 and which was adopted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter was referred to as ‘local amendment’) to Rule 85 of Order XXI of the Code, the auction purchaser is also required to deposit the amount for the general stamp for issuing the sale certificate under Rule 94 within the time stipulated in Rule 85 i.e., before the court closes on the 15th day from the sale.

8. In the present case, the auction purchaser did not deposit the amount for stamp paper as required by the local amendment to Rule 85. Subsequently he filed E.A. No.150 of 2008 for grant of sale certificate under Rule 94 of Order XXI of the Code. The executing court upon hearing the counsel for the petitioner and also the counsel for the first respondent dismissed that application by its order dated 20.1.2011 on the ground that the petitioner did not comply with the aforesaid local amendment in depositing the amount for stamp paper along with purchase money and therefore the time cannot be extended for depositing it and consequently the sale is vitiated by material irregularity. That order is now questioned in this revision by the auction purchaser giving rise to the above point.

9. To decide the point, it is necessary to look at Sub-section (1) of Section 97 of the Central Amendment Act by which several amendments were carried out to the Code and which amendments came into force from 01.2.1977. Sub-section (1) of Section 97 reads as follows.

“any amendment made, or any provision inserted in the principal Act by a State Legislature or a High Court before the commencement of this Act shall, except in so far as such amendment or provision is consistent with the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act, stand repealed.”

10. Sub-section (2) o