Hon’ble Sunil Hali, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Neither respondents nor their counsel is present before the Court.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent No. 5 (deceased) filed a suit for recovery of arrears of salary against Sri B. C. Jhuria Higher Secondary School, Hathras through Secretary and Manager, District Aligarh, respondent No. 2. The suit was dismissed by learned Trial Court and appeal was preferred against the order of dismissal. Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of the respondent No. 5. An execution application No. 130 of 1969 was filed before the learned Trial Court. Decree passed by the appellate Court was questioned by the judgment debtor which was partly allowed by reducing the amount to the tune of Rs. 3050/- with interest @ 6 % per annum. Decree holder respondent No. 5 assigned the decree to respondent No. 6. An application for impleadment was filed by respondent No. 6 which was allowed and purchaser respondent No. 6 was impleaded alongwith decree holder Girdhari Lal Sharma. An objection was taken to the assignment of decree in favour of respondent No. 6 by the judgment debtor in the execution proceedings. Executing Court dismissed the objection. Executing Court attached the property of the judgment debtor and put it to sale. Petitioner purchased the property through auction sale held on 15.5.1972 by depositing one forth on the same date and rest of the amount was deposited within 15 days of the sale. An appeal was preferred against this order by the judgment debtor which was allowed. Aggrieved by this order second appeal was preferred by the petitioner which was allowed and the order of the first appellate Court was set aside. A Special Leave Petition was preferred against the order by the judgment debtor which was dismissed as withdrawn.

3. After having failed to get the order of auction set aside an application under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC was moved by the judgment debtor accompanied by tender indicating his intention to deposit the amount. This application was dismissed by the executing Court vide order dated 18.3.1980 on the ground that the amount was not deposited within 30 days as contemplated under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC. Consequently, the auction sale held on 18.3.1980 was confirmed and sale certificate was issued in favour of the auction purchaser on 21.3.1980. Possession of the property was delivered to the petitioner.

4. An appeal against this order was preferred in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge, Aligarh who vide order dated 11.4. 1991 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and the order dated 30.3.1982. It is pertinent to mention here the earlier order passed by the Munsiff, Hathras was set aside by the appellate Court and remanded back for passing afresh order.

5. Appellate Court while allowing the appeal against the order dated 20.3.1982 set aside the order of Munsiff, Hathras and directed that the application filed by the judgment debtor be allowed as a consequence thereof he be permitted to deposit the amount in the Court. It is this order which is subject-matter of challenge before this Court.

6. As the fact would reveal the sale was completed on 15.5.1972 and the application under Order XXI Rule 89 was filed on 3.7.1972.

7. In order to understand the controversy involved in this writ petition, it is necessary to quote the Order XXI Rule 89 CPC which is as under:

Order XXI Rule 89 :Application to set aside sale on deposit:—(I) Where the immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree, any person claiming an interest in the property sold at the time of the sale or at the time of making the application or acting for or in the interest of such person may apply to have the sale set aside on his depositing in Court :

(a) for payment to the purchaser, a sum equal to five per cent of the purchase money, and

(b) for payment to the decree holder, the amount specified in the proclamation of sale as that for the recovery of which