RAMACHANDRA IYER, J.:- This revision petition raises the question whether making reference to the existence of certain antecedent or collateral proceedings and the reservation of rights in regard to the same in a petition accompanying a deposit under O.21, R.89, C.P.C. could be said to make the deposit otherwise than an unconditional one. The auction purchaser who resisted the application to set aside the sale is the petitioner. In E.P. No.570 of 1956 on the file of the District Munsif of Madurai taluk, the decree. holder applied in execution of a small cause decree, for attachment and sale of a certain immovable property belonging to the judgment-debtor. Execution was resisted on the ground that the decree had been previously satisfied. An application, E.A. No.1430 of 1956, was also filed to record satisfaction of the decree. The latter application was dismissed for default of appearance and execution was directed on the former. An application was then filed to restore E.A. No.1430 of 1956; that too had to be dismissed for non-appearance of the judgment-debtor. Yet another application, E.A. No.1008 of 1957 was filed to restore the previous one.

In the meanwhile the decree-