U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.

1. Challenging the civil revision petition at the instance of petitioner/4th judgment debtor is the order dated 10.10.2018 in E.A. No. 94 of 2018 in E.P. No. 20 of 2014 in O.S. No. 114 of 2011 where under the learned V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi allowed the petition filed by the petitioner/auction purchaser under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (for short 'C.P.C.') to permit him to deposit the value of stamp papers for getting sale certificate beyond the time stipulated in Order 21 Rule 5 of C.P.C.

2. The factual matrix of the case is thus:

(a) In E.P. No. 20 of 2014, the 1st respondent herein was the third party/auction purchaser being the successful bidder in the auction conducted by the Execution Court. He paid 25% of the sale consideration amount on the date of auction itself i.e., on 16.8.2018 and also deposited the remaining 75% of the consideration on 23.8.2018. However, he has not deposited the requisite amount for obtaining stamp paper for drafting sale certificate within the period prescribed under Order 21 Rule 85 of C.P.C.

(b) The auction purchaser realized his mistake and later, he filed E.A. No. 94 of 2018 under Section 148 and Section 151 of C.P.C. on 25.9.2018 requesting the Court to permit him to deposit the value for stamp paper for obtaining sale certificate and the said petition was allowed by the Execution Court which is filed and the said order is assailed by the petitioner/4th judgment debtor in the instant civil revision petition.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy and learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, Sri T.D. Phani Kumar.

4. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy is that under Order 21 Rule 85 of C.P.C., the auction purchaser is duty bound to deposit full purchase money which includes the value of stamp duty required for obtaining sale certificate within 15 days from the date of auction for sale. Though, the petitioner deposited the purchase money within 15 days, however, he failed to deposit the requisite money for obtaining stamp duty for drafting sale certificate within 15 days as prescribed under Rule 85 of C.P.C. Hence, in terms of Rule 85 of C.P.C., the sale has become null and void as Rule 85 of C.P.C. mandates that consequent upon the default committed by the auction purchaser, the Court shall conduct a resale. In that view, he was strenuously argued, the Court has no power either under Section 148 or Section 151 of C.P.C. to extend time to deposit the worth of stamp duty into Court.

5. Hence, the impugned order is contrary to the tenets of law and liable to be struck for contra.

6. While admitting that the 1st respondent/auction purchaser failed to deposit the money required for obtaining stamp duty, learned Counsel would argue that he had diligently paid the entire purchaser money, but by mistake, which is bona fide one he failed to deposit the money for stamp duty. Hence, considering the said procedural mistake as a bona fide one, the Execution Court has rightly allowed the petition and permitted him to deposit the money for stamp duty and there is nothing wrong in the said order.

7. In the light of the above respective arguments, the question that follow for consideration is:

Whether the Execution Court has power to extend time prescribed under Rule 84 and Rule 85 of C.P.C. to deposit the purchase money?

8. To answer the above question, it is useful to extract Order 21 Rules 84, 85 and 86 of C.P.C.

“Rule 84 of C.P.C.: Deposit by purchaser and resale on default.--(1) On every sale of immovable property the person declared to be the purchaser shall pay immediately after such declaration a deposit of twenty five per cent on the amount of his purchase money to the officer or other person conducting, the sale, and in default of such deposit, the property shall forthwith be re-sold.

(2) Where the decree holder is the purchaser and is entitled to set-off the purchase-money under Rule 72, the