ORDER Edgley, J. - In this case the petitioner filed an application under O. 21, R. 71, Civil P. C., for the recovery of the deficiency in the purchase price from a defaulting purchaser of a holding which was put up to sale on 17th May 1943. On that day, it appears that the purchaser deposited the sum of Rs. 1500 which he had bid at the sale, but he failed to pay up the arrears of rent due to the decree-holder as required by the provisions of S. 168A (1) (b), Ben. Ten. Act. The result was that the learned Munsif declined to confirm the sale and ordered the holding to be resold. At the subsequent sale the property was purchased for Rs. 525. The landlord, therefore, claimed to recover from the defaulting purchaser at the first sale the difference between Rs. 525 and Rs. 1500, i. e., Rs. 975. But his application was rejected by the learned Munsif. 2. The learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner claims that he is entitled to the benefit of O. 21, R. 71 of the Code which lays down that any deficiency of price which may happen on a re-sale by reason of the purchaser's default shall be recoverable from the defaulting purchaser under the provisions relating to the execution of a decree for the payment of money. 3. It seems to me, however, that the sort of default which the Legislature had in view under this section was failure to make a deposit of the purchase money at the proper time under O. 21, Rr. 84 and 85. As regards S. 168A, Ben. Ten. Act, sub-s. (1) (b) prescribes a certain liability on the part of the purchaser at the sale referred to in cl. (a), but the penalty of failure to comply with the requirements of cl. (b) is contained in sub-s. (3) of S. 168A which is in the following terms: A sale referred to in cl. (a) of sub-s. (1) shall not be confirmed until the purchaser has deposited with the Court or certificate officer, as the case may be, the sum referred to in cl. (b) of that subsection. Having regard to the language of this section, it does not appear to have been the intention of the Legislature that the purchaser merely on account of failure to make the deposit referred to in cl. (b) of that subsection. Having regard to the language of this section, it does not appear to have been the intention of the Legislature that the purchaser merely on account of failure to make the deposit referred to in cl. (b) should be liable to any further penalty such as is contemplated by O. 21, R. 71 of the Code. 4. In this connection it may be remembered that if in due course, after failure on the part of the defaulting purchaser to pay the requisite arrears due to the decree-holder, the tenure or holding is resold, the new purchaser will be under the same liability to make good to the landlord the arrears due under S. 168 (1) (b), and it, therefore, follows, that the landlord is not likely to incur any loss by reason of this default. The rule is accordingly discharged with costs-hearing-fee one gold mohur.