( 1 ) THIS revision has been preferred by the auction-purchaser against the order of the Tenth Additional Judge, to the Court of District Judge, Indore dt. 01-03-1988 passed in Civil Execution Case No. 14 of 76, whereby the sale of the property which was confirmed has been declared as a nullity and the same has been ordered to be resold.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts leading to this revision petition are that the non-application No. 1 decree-holder Bank of Baroda obtained a decree against non-applicants Nos. 2, 3 and 4. In execution of the decree for realisation of an amount of Rs. 61,008. 22 p. the immovable property of the judgment-debtors was put to auction on 24th April, 82. The final bid was struck down at Rs. 62,000/- which was accepted in favour of the applicant auction-purchaser. The auction-purchaser deposited Rs. 10,000/- in cash towards 1/4th amount of the purchase money and for the balance of Rs. 5,500/- moved an application on the same day that because the Banks are closed he could not deposit the balance amount in cash and, therefore, he be allowed to deposit the said amount by cheque. The Court ordered to accept the said amount by cheque. The cheque which was handed over on 24th April, 1982 was encashed on 10th May, 1982. On 20th Jan. , 84 the sale was confirmed in favour of the auction-purchaser as the balance amount was deposited in time. As the matter was pending before theSupreme Court the sale certificate could not be issued. On 02-09-1987 the auction-purchaser purchased the stamps for sale certificate and deposited it with the Court. On 09-10-87 sale certificate was issued which was registered. On 18-01-1988 for the first time the judgment-debtors raised an objection that as 25 per cent of the purchase money was not deposited immediately on the same day in accordance with the provisions of O. 21, R. 84, C. P. C. , the auction-purchaser committed a default and as such the sale in favour of the auction purchaser is a nullity and the property should be ordered to be resold.

( 3 ) AFTER hearing the parties and the auction-purchaser the Executing Court, vide the impugned order dt. 01-03-1988 held that the sale in favour of the auction-purchaser is a nullity, because 25 per cent of the purchase money was not deposited on the same day after striking the bid in favour of the auction purchaser. It is this order which has been challenged by the auction-purchaser in revision.

( 4 ) BEFORE me the parties did not raise any objection about the maintainability of the revision. Hence this revision is disposed of on merits. The contention of Shri K. L. Sethi learned counsel for the auction-purchaser is that O. 21, R. 84, C. P. C. do not prescribe any mode of payment or deposit and in this case the auction-purchaser deposited 25 per cent of the amount, out of that amount a part of the amount was deposited by cheque, which was accepted by the Court. Not only this, the sale was also confirmed in his favour and ultimately a sale certificate was issued. Payment by cheque is a valid payment under S. 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, after the presentation of the cheque when it is realised it relates back to the date of presentation. Shri Sethi placed reliance on the three Division Bench cases of Bombay, Madras and Gauhati High Courts reported in AIR 1952 Bom 306 (Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. v. Commr. of Income-tax, Bombay), AIR 1966 Mad 435 (Mohideen Bi v. Khatoon Bi) and 1983 0 Labic 121 (Gau) (Socklatings Tea Co. (P) Ltd. v. Chairman, Board of Trustees, Gauhati ). The learned counsel also contended that once the sale is confirmed, even if the decree for which in execution proceedings the property is put to auction is varied or reversed, the title which has been vested in the auction purchaser remains in tact. For this submission learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1967 SC 608 (Piarelal v. Bhagwati Prasad) and a decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1969 MPLJ 17 (Pia