The court has no jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing the balance of the purchase money beyond the period of fifteen days prescribed by Order 21 Rule 85. The sale is a nullity if the balance of the purchase money is not deposited within the prescribed period. The inherent powers of the court cannot be invoked to circumvent the imperative provisions of the Code and relieve the auction-purchasers of their obligation to make the deposit of the purchase money under Order 21 Rule 85.

( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision under Section 115 C. P. C. by an auction-purchaser.

( 2 ) ON 4-11-53 it was ordered that sale should take place on 23-12-53 of the property in dispute. On 23-12-53 sale of the property was held and it was purchased by the auction-purchaser applicant. On that day he deposited 25 per cent, of the purchase money under Order 21 Rule 84. The balance of the purchase money he had to deposit within fifteen days from the date of the sale, i. e. the deposit should have been made by 7-1-54 at the latest, as required by Rule 85 of order 21. On 6-1-54, instead of depositing the money, the auction-purchaser prayed for further extension of time to deposit the money till 23-1-54. The court extended the time only by ten days. On 15-1-54 the remaining amount was deposited. On 23-1-54 the sale was confirmed and the sale certificate was granted. On 29-1-54, i. e. after the confirmation of the sale, an application was moved- that since the money had not been deposited within the statutory period of fifteen days, as required under Order 21 Rule 85 the sale should be set aside, and it is this application which has given rise to this application in revision. The court below held that the sale was a nullity as the 75 per cent, had not been deposited and, therefore, it set aside the sale and ordered resale of the property. Against that order the auction-purchaser has come to this Court.

( 3 ) THERE is a preliminary ground taken by the opposite party that no application in revision lies, for the sale has been set aside under Order 21, Rule 92, There is an appeal provided and the applicant should have gone in appeal, under Order 49 Rule 1 (j ). " I asked the learned counsel for the applicant as to whether he treated this order under Order 21, Rule 92 or an order under section 47. In either event there would be a right of appeal whether the sale is set aside under order 21 Rule 92 or on an objection in execution proceeding by the Judgment debtor under section 47. In my opinion, in the circumstances the applicant should have gone in appeal against that order and not in revision, and since the order is of the Munsif, the applicant should have gone to the District Judge.

( 4 ) APART from this fact, I do not see any merits in the case itself and, therefore, will discuss the case from that point of view also.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant argues that when once a sale has been confirmed under order 21 Rule 92 it cannot be set aside except by means of a separate suit. It is true that if a sale has been confirmed it cannot be set aside except under Order 21 Rule 89, unless the application has been made under Order 21 Rule 90. Rule 90 applies only when there is valid sale. If there is no valid sale there can be no confirmation of an invalid sale. If confirmation of an invalid sale has been made, it will be an invalid confirmation. So what we have to see is whether the sale was a valid one or not. If it was a valid sale, then it may be that in the present circumstances the application for setting aside the sale may not lie. There are numerous cases in which even after the confirmation of the sale the courts have interfered and have allowed the sale to be set aside. Thus, under Section 18 of the Limitation Act when an applicant seeking the setting aside of a sale has by means of fraud been kept from the knowledge of his right, he will be entitled to have the limitation run from the date when he became aware of the fraud, and in spite of the fact that the sale had taken place and had been confirmed he will have the right to challenge it. This has been held by this Court in Sheo Ram Koeri v. Ikramunnissa Bibi, AIR, 1923 All 282 (2) (A) and nazir Hussain v. Kanhaya Lal, AIR 1916 All 184 (B ). Other Courts have also held the same view. So it is not that in no case a sale can be set aside after the confirmation.

( 6 ) IT was contended that the article prescribing the period of limitation in the Limitat