Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral) - This is second appeal in execution filed by the Auction Purchaser, being aggrieved against both the orders of the Courts below, whereby the judgment debtor has been allowed to make the deficiency of 5% in the purchase money as required under Order 21 Rule 89 of CPC.

2. In brief, the State Bank of India, filed a suit for recovery against respondent Nos.2 to 5, which was decreed on 14.9.2005. It filed an application for execution on 21.3.2006 which was dismissed as partly satisfied on 29.9.2007. Thereafter, the present execution was filed for realising the remaining decretal amount by way of sale of mortgaged property belonging to judgment debtor No.3.

3. When the application was filed under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC for proclamation of sale, objections were filed on behalf of Judgment debtors No.3 and 4 stating that they had deposited Rs.7,26,300/- on different dates and now only a sum of Rs.3,63,126.13 has remained due towards the decretal amount.

4. Upon notice, the decree holder submitted that payment of Rs.7,26,300/- has been made by the judgment debtor and as per the calculations made by the decree holder on the basis of decree passed by the Court, a sum of Rs.3,89,824.31was still payable to him by the judgment debtor. Since the said amount was not paid, the property was put to auction in which the present appellant was the highest bidder and had deposited 25% of the auction amount. The remaining 75% of the amount was deposited by him in the Court vide draft No. 694734 dated 16.7.2010 for Rs.3,80,000/- and draft No.694695 dated 13.7.2010 for Rs.3,50,000/-. Thus, a total sum of Rs.9,80,000/- was deposited by the appellant towards money of the property in dispute. But Dr.Vivek Dhir filed an application with objection for permission to deposit the balance decretal amount plus 5% of the sale amount. However, he had deposited the balance decretal amount of Rs.3,89,825/- and deposited 5% of the said amount of Rs.19,492/-, whereas he should have calculated said amount 5% on the purchase money of Rs.9,80,000/- which comes to Rs.49,000/- with the deficiency of Rs.29,508/-.

5. Owing to this mistake of the judgment debtor, he filed an application on 3.12.2010 in order to deposit deficient amount of Rs.29,508/- at his own responsibility.

6. The auction purchaser/appellant raised an objection that the amount cannot be allowed to be deposited as it is delayed being barred by limitation and also the error of omission on the part of the judgment debtor cannot be rectified.

7. The Executing Court, however, allowed the application observing that there is a clerical error on the part of the judgment debtor, whereby he had calculated 5% on the decretal amount, rather it should have been on the auction money. In view thereof, permission was granted to the judgment debtor vide order dated 27.9.2011.

8. Aggrieved against the said order, auction purchaser/appellant filed statutory appeal which too, has been dismissed while taking into consideration Article 127 of the Limitation Act,1963 (for short, ‘the Act’) and also order 21 Rule 89 read with Order 21 Rule 92 (2) CPC. The learned Appellate Court has also observed while referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dadi Jaggannadham Vs. Jammulu Ramul and Ors, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 2699, as per which time could be extended from 30 days upto 60 days and the application could be filed within that period and therefore, prayer made by the judgment debtor cannot be declined on that ground.

9. Insofar as the question of making good the deficiency of that amount is concerned, the learned Appellate Court has referred to Order 21 Rule 92 (2) CPC which gives powers to the Court to extend the time for the purpose of making the deficiency good if there is clerical or arithmetical error.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that he is not challenging the jurisdiction of the Court as enjoyed by it under Order 21 Rule 92 (2) CPC, but