Wanchoo, C.J.—This is an appeal by Kanhaiyalal decree-holder against the order of the Civil Judge, Sojat, setting aside a sale under OXXI, r. 84 on the ground that the decree-holder auction purchaser had not deposited 25% of the purchase money as required by O.XXI,r. 84(1) C.P.C.

2. The fact are that certain property was ordered to be sold and 25th of May, 1953, was fixed for the sale. On that day, the decree-holder applied to the executing court for permission to bid at the auction and also prayed that the amount realized by sale be set-off towards his decree. The court passed an order this application in the following terms—

"The decree-holder is permitted to bid at the sale."

Nothing was said about the other prayer made by the decree-holder, namely that the purchase money be set-off towards his decree.

3. The sale took place on the 25th of May and the decree-holders bid was the highest. The sale was apparently knocked down in his favour, but he did not deposit 25% of the purchase-money as required by r 84(1) of O. XXI C P.C. Thereafter, certain objections were made by the judgment-debtor on the 29th of May, 1953 it is not necessary to refer in detail to those objections. It is enough to say that when the matter came before the court on the 17th of November, 1955, it set aside the sale on the ground that the decree-holder auction-purchaser had not deposited 25% of she purchase-money within time. It did not decide any of the objections raised in the application of the 29th of May, 1953, but fixed 25th January, 1954, for hearing those objections Thereafter, there was an appeal to this Court, and the objections of the 29th of May,1953, are, we understand, still undisposed of.

4. The point raised by the present appeal is whether in view of the provisions of O.XXI, Rr. 72and 84 a decree-holder, who has been permitted to bid, must deposit 25% of the purchase-money at once, and if he fails to do so, the sale can be set aside. The relevant portion of O.XXI,r. 72 is as follows—

"(1) No holder of a decree in execution of which property is sold shall, without the express permission of the Court, bid for or purchase of the property,

(2) Where a decree-holder purchases with such permission, the purchase-money and the amount due on the decree may, subject to the provisions of sec. 73, be set off against one another, and the Court executing the decree shall enter up satisfaction of the decree in whole or in part accordingly."

O.XXI, r. 84(1) provides that the auction-purchaser shall forthwith deposit 25% on the amount of his purchase-money with the officer or other person conducting the sale, and in default of such deposit, the property shall forthwith be resold. Then comes r. 84(2) which is as follows—

"Where the decree-holder is the purchaser and is entitled to set-off the purchase-money under r. 72, the Court may dispense with the requirements of this rule."

5. It is clear therefore that under r.72, a decree-holder is entitled to set-off the purchase money against the amount of his decree. The order for set off has naturally to be made by the court after it is reported to the court that the decree-holder has purchased the property in pursuance of the permission granted under sub-rule(2) of rule 72. Similarly sub-rule (2) of rule 84provides that the court may dispense with the requirements of sub-rule(1) where the decree-holder is the purchaser, and is entitled to set-off.

6. Reading these two rules together, it seems to us plain common sense that where a decree-holder is permitted to bid at an auction, there is an implied dispensation also that the need not deposit 95% of the purchase money unless the sale price is more than the decretal amount. Where the sale price is more than the decretal amount, the decree-holder must deposit the excess up 25% of the purchase money depending upon the excess of the sale price over the decretal amount. There is, in our opinion, no sense in insisting upon the decree-holder to depositing 25% of the purchase money,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document