Prior to confirmation of sale deposit may be made at any time on any date.

NAINAR SUNDARAM, J. :- In these Letters Patent Appeals, the question which has arisen for consideration relates to the scope of the contingency under which and the conditions o n satisfaction of which, the powers of court to be exercised under O. XXXIV R.5 of the Civil P. C. hereinafter referred to as the Code. To assess the question raised and to express an opinion thereon, it has become necessary to trace the facts of the case. We are obliged to refer to the parties as they stood arrayed in CMP 16300 of 1982 in CMA 532 of 1977 (Reported in AIR 1984 Mad 27), against the orders in which these Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred, which array is more or less similar in the civil miscellaneous appeal itself. In 1963 two items of properties were the subject matter of mortgage by Narayana Raja the petitioner to and in favour of one Meyyappa Chettiar who is no more. Ranganayaki Achi, the first respondent, who died subsequently, and Sevugan Chettiar, the second respondent. were countenanced as the legal representatives of Meyyappa Chettiar. On the death of Ranganayaki Achi herself, Sevugan Chettiar, the second respondent and Ramiah Chettiar, the seventh respondent, have been countenanced as her legal representatives. The suit O. S.166 of 1965 on the file of the Subordinate Judge. Madurai was filed in enforcement of the mortgage by the original mortgagee and preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 29-6-1966. A final decree ensued on 28-2-1967. Execution was prosecuted by the original mortgagee decree-holder in E. P. 119 of 1967 for the sale of the properties. The decree-holder seemed to have died subsequently and the execution was prosecuted by his legal representatives. The execution petition was posted for disposal on 22-12-1967. However, it was advanced on 1-12-1967 and posted to 2-12-1967, when the outing court directed the sale of the properties to be held on 22-1-1908. The sale was actually held on 23-1-1968 and item No. 1 was sold in favour of Natarajan Chettiar, the fifth respondent and item No. 2 of the properties was sold in favour of Ramaswami Chettiar, the sixth respondent. The petitioner the defendant Judgment-debtor filed E. A. 157 of 1969 under O.XXI Rule 90 of the code for setting aside the court auction sale. Despite the filing of the application to set aside the sale, the executing Court confirmed the sale and possession was taken. Ultimately E. A. 157 of 1969 was dismissed on 16-8-1976. As against the decision in E. A.157 of 1969, the petitioner preferred C. M. A. 532 of 1977. Earlier, the civil miscellaneous appeal was allowed by this court on 5-3-1981 and the sale in favour of respondents 5 and 6 was set aside. S.N. S.and Co. Dindigul, the third respondent who is stated to be a puisne mortgagee and the legal representatives of fifth respondent, who seemed to have died subsequently, filed petitions to set to the order of this court in CMA 532 of 1977. This Court allowed these petitions as a result CMA J32 of 1977 has been restored to be heard in respect of the interest of the third respondent and the legal representatives of the fifth respondent. At this stage, the petitioner as filed the petition. C. M. P. 16308 of 1982 under O.XXXIV R.5 of the Code seeking permission to deposit the amounts due under the decree. The petition was opposed by the third respondent and the c al representatives of the fifth respondent on two grounds. One is, the sale was confirmed tong prior to the filing the application and hence, O.XXXIV R.5 of We Code, cannot be invoked and the second is, there has been no deposit into court of the amounts due under the decree within the meaning of O.XXXIV R.5 of the Code, and the petitioner only right a direction to deposit and this could not suffice the purpose of O.XXXIV R.5. Ramanujam J. who heard the petition, repelled both the above contentions, allowed the petition and permitted the petitioner to deposit the amounts before the trial Court and the Court was directed to go i