( 1 ) THIS is a Letters Patent appeal from a decision of Shiv Dayal J. dismissing an appeal preferred by the appellants against an order of the District Judge, Sagar by which the learned District Judge rejected an application preferred by the appellants under Order 21 Rule 89 C. P. C.

( 2 ) THE material facts are that in execution of a money decree held by the respondent No. 1 Bittibai against Babulal, Rikhilal, Rani Bahu, Rameshwar Prasad. Maharani, Bhagwandas and three others, a house belonging to the judgmentdebtors was sold on 8th January 1966 and purchased by the respondent No 2 himmatbhai. On 17th January 1966, the respondent Babulal made an application under Order 21, Rule 90, C. P. C. for setting aside the sale. On 7th February 1966 an application under Order 21, Rule 89, signed by Babulal, was made and on the same day the requisite deposit under Order 21, Rule 89 was made by Babulal on behalf of himself and on behalf of Rikhilal, Bhagwandas and Rameshwar Prasad. The learned Single Judge has held that the application under Order 21, Rule 89, c. P. C. , signed by Babulal, was not only on his own behalf but also on behalf of rameshwar Prasad, Rikhilal and Bhagwandas. He, however, rejected the application made by Babulal on his own behalf and on behalf of other judgment-debtors under Order 21, Rule 89, C. P. C. , taking the view that Babulal's application dated 17th January 1966 under Rule 90 was a bar to the making of an application dated 7th February 1966 under Rule 89. The learned Single Judge rejected the contention advanced on behalf of Bhagwandas and Rameshwar Prasad, two of the judgment-debtor appellants here, that as they had not filed any application under order 21, Rule 90, C. P. C. and had made an application under Order 21, Rule 89, c. P. C. jointly with Babulal making the requisite deposit, they were entitled to have the sale set aside under Order 21, Rule 89 in their own right. While rejecting this contention, the learned Single Judge expressed himself thus-

"but where two persons make a joint deposit and apply under Order 21, rule 89, and one of them insists on the sale being set aside under Order 21, Rule 90, C. P. C. , the other cannot claim relief under Order 21, Rule 89 by reason of his being one of the joint, applicants and depositors. This is plain enough for a co-depositor cannot be deprived of his rights to get the sale set aside under Order 21, Rule 90, C. P. C. Therefore if bhagwandas or Rameshwar Prasad had made the requisite deposit but not jointly with Babulal the former would have been entitled to relief under Order 21, Rule 89 and the sale was bound to be set aside, irrespective of Babulal's pending application under Order 21, Rule 90. But the difficulty is that the deposit made on 7th February 1966 was made jointly by Babulal, whose application dated 17th January 1966 under Order 21, Rule 90 was pending and which he not only did not withdraw, but also subsequently reiterated. Then Bhagwandas or rameshwar Prasad could not ask the Court to ignore as joint depositor babalal's claim for relief under Rule 90. And since the deposit was not independently made by Bhagwandas or Rameshwar Prasad or either of them they had necessarily depended on Babulal's attitude. In this view of the matter Shri Pandey's contention must be rejected that bhagwandas and Rameshwar Prasad were in their own right entitled to relief under Rule 89. "( 3 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, we have reached the conclusion that this appeal must be allowed, in reaching the conclusion that he did. the learned Single Judge did not notice the local amendment made in Order 21, Rule 39 C. P. C. Paragraph 1 of sub-rule (1) of rule 89, as amended in the State, read thus-''where immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree, any person claiming any interest in the property sold at the time of the sale or at the time of the petition, or 'acting for, or in the interest of, such person', may apply to hav