1. In this revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the decree holder, a short but intricate point of law has been raised.

2. The factual background may first be given: The applicant/bank obtained a decree on the basis of mortgage against the non-applicant/judgment-debtor in the sum of Rs. 41,286.04 being the principal amount of loan with interest pendente lite and future interest at contractual rate of 16% per annum.

3. The operative part of the decree, which is relevant for deciding the contentions advanced by the parties, reads as under:

"the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 41,286,04p. together with the interest pendente lite and future at the contractual rate of 18% per annum with half yearly rest till full recovery." (Underlining for emphasis)

4. In execution of the decree, the property attached was put to sale by auction on 15.4.1991. The highest bidder deposited 1/4th of the amount on spot and deposited remaining amount of the bid money on 30.4.1991, which was deposited in civil Court deposit.

5. Several objections were filed to the sale by third parties. The objections were overruled and the litigation went upto Supreme Court. Awaiting the decision of the objections filed, the sale could not be confirmed and it was confirmed by the executing Court only on 21.7.1994. After the sale was confirmed, the decree holder claimed that on the principal sum not only that he was entitled to interest at the rate pf 16% upto 30.4.1991 when on the basis of sale full amount of purchase money was deposited but also till the sale was confirmed on 21.7.1994.

6. According to the judgment-debtor, for no fault on his part, decision on objections raised to the auction sale took more than three years for decision and he cannot be fastened with the liability of interest from 30.4.1991 when the purchase money in full came to be deposited in the Court till the confirmation of sale by the Court on 21.7.1994.

7. The executing Court by the impugned order held that the decree-holder is not entitled to interest from 30.4.1991 when the purchase money was deposited by the auction purchaser till the confirmation of the sale and actual payment to the decree-holder.

8. The learned counsel Shri Rajnish Sanghi appearing for the decreeholder/bank submits that the judgment-debtor cannot avoid its liability towards interest in face of the express terms of the decree which provided payment of interest till full recovery of the amount. It is submitted that it is not open to the judgment-debtor to deny its liability for payment of interest for the period spent by the Court for deciding the objections raised by third parties. It is submitted that in fact third parties were none else than his own interested persons set up by him to frustrate the sale. Very strong reliance is placed on the decision of Nagpur High Court in Ramchandra Marotrao Wanjori v. Ramchandra Qujaba Shrawane (AIR 1938 Nag. Page 54) and particularly the following passage :

"........The Civil Procedure Code contemplates proceedings for setting aside sales under O.21, R. 89, or O.21, R. 90. The title which the purchaser gets on sale is subject to these proceedings, if any of these proceedings taken and the sale in set aside. It is but just and proper that the auction purchaser who has deposited the purchase money in Court should get it immediately from the Court and it does not appear reasonable to ask him to realize from the decree holder to whom it has been paid immediately on deposit as held by the lower appellate Court. In many cases this will involve a great risk for the purchaser, as for instance, in a case where the decree holder is not a man of substance or is in the meantime declared insolvent or runs away with the amount paid to him and has no property. A purchaser would necessarily look to the Court for the return of the amount which has been paid by him in Court subject to the rules laid down in Civil Procedure Code and it is not prope