JUDGMENT D.N. Roy, J. - These are two connected Civil Revisions arising out of an order dated the 9th of February, 1951 passed by the District Judge, Allahabad in two revenue appeals setting aside the sale in favour of the decree-holder. The facts are these. Two decrees for profits were obtained from the court of the Revenue Officer Muzaffarnagar. The decrees were transferred to Allahabad for execution. The judgment-debtor's one-fourth share in bungalow No. 3 on the Edmons:one Road was in due course attached. Notices were issued to the judgment-debtor to his address in village Babari in district Muzaffarnagar but it remained unserved as he had temporarily left the village due to plague. Service was accordingly effected by publication in "the Bharat" and in the "Sri Vijay." The share in the house was put up for auction in July 1945, The auction was held on the 21st July, when the highest bid of Rs. 7,800/ - was made by one of the decree-holders. The Tahsildar who conducted the sale instead of taking cash deposit of one-fourth of the bid from the auction-purchaser took a sum of Rs. 1300/ - only, presumably allowing for the decretal amount which exceeded Rs. 650/ -. The papers were put up before the S.D.O. Chail on 26th of July, 1945 and he passed orders to the effect that the Tahsildar should immediately realise the balance of one-fourth of the bid. This money namely Rs. 650/ - was deposited on August 21, 1945. On August 31, 194.% the S.D.O "confirmed" the sale and said 'hat the balance of three-fourth of the purchase money may be realiased. The balance was deposited on the 3rd of September, 1945. The judgment-debtor did not apply for setting aside the sale until December, 1945 when he said that he first came to know of the execution proceedings. The executing court refused to set aside the sale. Two appeals were preferred which were heard and disposed of by the Addl. District Judge of Allahabad on the 1 th July 1947, who considered that certain malarial questions had not been properly appraised. The appeals were allowed and the objection was remanded to the executing court for decision on merits after giving the parties an opportunity to lead evidence on the issues framed and in the light of the observations made by he Addl District Judge. The appeals were allowed and the objection was remanded to the executing court for decision on merits after giving the parties an opportunity to lead evidence on the issues framed and in the light of the observations made by he Addl District Judge. The objection was again rejected by the executing court. The judgment-debtor preferred two miscellaneous revenue appeals and this time the matter was heard and disposed of by the District Judge of Allahabad on the 9th of February, 1951, and he set aside the sale holding that it was void. It is against this order that these two revisions have been preferred. In deciding the two earlier appeals the learned Addl. District Judge was of the opinion that there was some force in the decree-holder's contention that the order of the 31st of August 1945 passed by S.D.O. Chail should retreated as an order of acceptance or declaration contemplated in Rule 84 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the later appeals the district Judge held that if the deposit is to be created as not within time it would be the necessary to consider the question of fraud as extending the period of limitation to the date of knowledge when the matter came up before the District Judge in two subsequent appeals. It was suggested on behalf of the decree-holder that the question whether the deposit was made within time or not had already been determined by the Addl. District Judge and consequently it could not be reagitated. The District Judge was, however, of the view that on reading the judgment of the Addl. District Judge it was apparent that the Addl. District Judge gave no definite findings but merely made certain observations and remitted some issues to the court below to be decided in the light of those observations and that under the circumstances it was open to the District Judge to consider the matter afresh without being bound by his predecessor's observations. A copy of order of the Addl. District Judge passed in the earlier appeals has been laid before me by Mr. Ghatak. 2. Mr. Ghatak has argued, relying upon a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Chauli v. Meghoo 1945 AWR (H.C.) 244 that the District Judge was bound by the decision of the Addl. A copy of order of the Addl. District Judge passed in the earlier appeals has been laid before me by Mr. Ghatak. 2. Mr. Ghatak has argued, relying upon a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Chauli v. Meghoo 1945 AWR (H.C.) 244 that the District Judge was bound by the decision of the Addl. District Judge on the point in question and he had become functus officio so far as that question was concerned after the order of remand. In my judgment the District Judge was quite entitled to say that he will give the parties further opportunity to agitate a matter which in the proper sense had not been decided after full consideration, the more so because the District Judge thought that there were special reasons existing in the case as to why he should reconsider the previous opinion expressed by the Addl. District Judge. The court was in no sense functus officio because the question of the confirmation of the sale was still before it; and in order to arrive at the question as to whether the sale in the circumstances of the case was fit to be confirmed or not, it could take note of the totality of circumstances bearing upon that question. The Full Bench decision relied upon by Mr. Ghatak, in my opinion, goes to help the opposite party. 3. It is obvious in the present case that when on 26-7-1915 the S.D.O. ordered the tahsildar to realise the balance of the one-quarter of the bid immediately he must be deemed to have been acting under Order 21 Rule 84 which runs as folloWS: On every sale of immovable property the person declared to be the purchaser shall pay immediately after such declaration a deposit of twenty-five per cent. on the amount of his purchase money to the officer or other person conducting the sale, and in default of such deposit, the property shall forthwith be re-sold. 4. It was suggested that the S.D.O. wanted to give further time for the deposit of the full one-quarter of the bid but that suggestion does not find support from the order of 26-7-1945 which requires that the balance of one-quarter of the bid should be immediately deposited. Failure to deposit twenty-five per cent immediately as required by Order 21, Rule 84 is a material irregularity but it does not make the sale void. Failure to deposit twenty-five per cent immediately as required by Order 21, Rule 84 is a material irregularity but it does not make the sale void. Reference in this connection may be made to a decision of a Full Bench in Sita Ram v. Janki Ram ILR 44 Alld. 266. The provisions of Order 21 Rule 85 of the Code requiring the payment of the full amount of purchase-money into Court before the Court closes on the fifteenth day from the sale of the property are imperative, This view has the support of a decision of the Madras High Court in Sambasiva Ayyar v. Vydinadasami ILR 25 Mad. 535. The time provided by Order 21, Rule 85 cannot be extended u/s 148 of the Code. See 30 CWN 877 and 1938 Lah. 198 I might also refer to Order 21, Rule 86 of the Code which lays a duty upon the court to re-sell the property if the purchase money has not been deposited within the period prescribed by Rule 85. The performance of this duty is quite irrespective of any application being made by any party to the proceeding. When an auction-purchaser fails to deposit the full purchase money payable by him on the 10th day from the sale of the property then under Rule 86 the sale at which the auction purchaser purchased the property is automatically cancelled and he can have no interest in the property which was the subject of the sale. This view has the support of a decision of this Court in Haji Inam Ullah Vs. Mohammad Idris, AIR 1943 All 282 and of another decision of Calcutta High Court in Smt. Annapurna Dasi v. Bazley Karim Fazley Moula AIR 1941 Cal. 95. Having regard to the circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the order dated 26-7-1945 passed by the S.D.O. directing the auction purchaser to deposit 25 per cent immediately cannot be construed as anything other than a declaration that such person is the purchaser within the meaning of Order 21 Rule 84 of the Code and I see, therefore, no justification for holding that the order passed on that date did not amount to a declaration under Rule 84. The subsequent order of 31-8-1945 was obviously illegal, as an order of confirmation for the sale could not have been passed till the entire purchase-money was deposited. 5. The subsequent order of 31-8-1945 was obviously illegal, as an order of confirmation for the sale could not have been passed till the entire purchase-money was deposited. 5. In the circumstances the District Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that the sale was void for reasons stated by him and that it was unnecessary for him to go into the alternative plea of fraud which had been set up by the judgment-debtor. There is no force in these two revisional petitions and they are accordingly dismissed with costs. The stay order is discharged.