The court emphasized the mandatory conditions for filing an application under Order 21 Rule 89 and held that non-compliance with these conditions rendered the application not maintainable.

Though the first respondent in the revision petition (Judgment-debtor) was served with a notice and his name stands printed in the cause-list, none appears on his behalf. The auction purchaser, who came out as successful bidder in the Court auction sale, is the revision petitioner. The decree-holder is the second respondent in the Civil Revision Petition. Both of them are represented by counsel.

2. The submissions made by the counsel representing the revision petitioner and the counsel representing the second respondent/decree-holder are heard.

3. Admittedly, the second respondent/ decree-holder got a decree for recovery of money from the first respondent/judgment-debtor in O.S.No.605 of 2005, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Madurai. As the decree was not satisfied, the second respondent herein/decree-holder levied execution by filing E.P.No.7 of 2009, in which the property of the judgment-debtor was attached and brought for sale. In the Court auction sale held on 17.04.2012, the revision petitioner emerged as the successful bidder and the sale was concluded in his favour. In accordance with the auction conditions, the revision petitioner/auction purchaser deposited the part of the amount, to be paid on a particular day, before the said date and balance within the time allowed.

4. The Judgment-debtor, who is the first respondent herein, thereafter choose to file an application in E.A.No.112 of 2012 under Order 21 Rule 90 of C.P.C. to set aside the sale on the ground of irregularities in the conduct of sale. While the said petition was pending, he filed another application in E.A.No.121 of 2012 under Order 21 Rule 89 of C.P.C. to set aside the sale on deposit of the decree amount payable to the decree-holder and the amount payable to the auction purchaser. Both the applications were taken up together and by an order dated 04.09.2012, the learned Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town, dismissed E.A.No.112 of 2012 (petition filed under Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C.,) on merits holding that the petitioner therein was not able to prove any irregularity in the conduct of sale. Thereafter, on the same day, the learned Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town, passed an order in E.A.No.121 of 2012 directing the judgment-debtor to deposit the decree amount and the amount payable to the auction purchaser as per Order 21 Rule 89 of C.P.C., on or before 06.09.2012 as a condition for setting aside the sale. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the said order dated 04.09.2012 made in E.A.No.121 of 2012.

5. Mr.R.A.Mohanram, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/auction purchaser would contend that the application under Order 21 Rule 89 of C.P.C., itself was not maintainable in view of the pendency of the application filed under Order 21 Rule 90 of C.P.C., which application was not withdrawn by the judgment-debtor before filing E.A.No.121 of 2012. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the requirement of depositing the amount payable to the decree-holder under the decree and 5% of the purchase money to the purchaser is a condition precedent for filing a petition under Order 21 Rule 89 of C.P.C., and since the judgment-debtor did not deposit on the date of filing of the said application, the entertainment of the said petition itself was not proper and on that score also, the said petition should have been dismissed as not maintainable. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended further that for availing the benefit of Rule 89, the judgment-debtor or any person claiming an interest in the property or anybody espousing such interest of such person should have deposited the abovesaid amount within sixty days from the date of conclusion of sale and such a requirement is a condition precedent for entertainment of an application under the said Rule and that the very fact that the first respondent/ judgment-debtor failed to make a deposit within sixt