Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. The question involved in this appeal is whether the order of the District Munsif of Tinnevelly directing a re-sale of the property under Order 21, Rule 86, Civil Procedure Code, in execution of a decree obtained by the appellant against the first defendant is valid. The relevant facts are not in dispute. In execution of the said decree the property was sold on the 15th of September, 1933 and purchased by the 3rd respondent in this case. He deposited 25 per cent, of the purchase-money on the same date but committed default in payment of the balance of the purchase-money within 15 days as required by Order 21, Rule 85, Civil Procedure Code. He deposited the amount one day later. After the amount was so deposited the decree-holder applied for confirmation of the sale and for payment to him of the amount deposited in satisfaction of his decree. Notices were issued to the judgment-debtor and also to the Official Receiver who was appointed Receiver of the property of the judgment-debtor because of his having been adjudicated insolvent on the 6th of October, 1933. Both the judgment-debtor and the Official Receiver objected to the confirmation and the learne