Judgment :- 1. The civil revision petition has been referred to a Division Bench for considering the question whether the judgment-debtors have to deposit the costs incurred by the decree-holder-auction-purchaser subsequent to the sale also to avoid the sale under S.22 of Kerala Act XXXI of 1958. 2. The sale took place in August 1940 and it was confirmed in July 1941. Still, delivery of possession was effected-only on 22nd March 1958, i. e., after 1st November 1956, the date mentioned in S.22 (1) (i) of Act XXXI of 1958. Taking advantage of this, the judgment-debtors filed a petition on 5th August 1958 under S.22 (1) (ii) (a) depositing along with the petition one half of the purchase money, which included all the execution costs up to the date of sale. The question for consideration is whether the deposit was proper; in other words, whether the judgment-debtors were bound to deposit costs incurred by the decree-holder¬auction-purchaser subsequent to the sale also. We may incidentally point out at this stage that there is no evidence in the case as to how much were the costs incurred after the sale. 3. S.22(1) (ii) (a) enacts that the judgment-debtor has to "deposit one half of the purchase money together with the costs of execution, where such costs were not included in the purchase money". It is this expression that has to be interpreted: whether the deposit need be only a moiety of the purchase money in a case where the purchase money included all the costs of execution up to the date of sale; or whether the deposit should include the costs incurred by the decree-holder even after the sale. 4. The questions posed before us are whether the proceedings subsequent to the sale are proceedings in execution; and whether the costs incurred in those subsequent proceedings are costs of execution. We do not think it is necessary to decide those questions in this case, because, in our view, the relevant portion of the provision extracted hereinbefore contemplates only the deposit of one half of the purchase money, if it included all the costs of execution up to the date of sale. In other words, our opinion is that the costs incurred by the decree-holder after the sale, whether they be costs of execution or not, need not be deposited. In other words, our opinion is that the costs incurred by the decree-holder after the sale, whether they be costs of execution or not, need not be deposited. In the expression, "where such costs were not included in the purchase money", the verb used is were, which postulates that the costs of execution must have been in existence at the time of sale, i. e., the costs must have been incurred prior to the sale. In other words, the past tense used indicates that the costs incurred after the sale could not have formed part of the costs of execution mentioned in the section. This, according to us, is indication positive that the intention of the legislature was to include costs up to the date of sale alone in "costs of execution". 5. The observation of Velu Pillai, J. in Ramasubba Iyer v. Daveed Christudas (1963 KLT. 886) has been brought to our notice expressing a contra opinion. Our learned brother observes that the lower courts in that case committed an error in overlooking "the provision in S.22 (1) (ii)(b) by which not only the one half of the sale amount, but also the costs of execution not included in the purchase money, had to be deposited before the sale is set aside." Velu Pillai, J. proceeds that: "there was an argument before me as to what the expression "costs of execution not included in the purchase money" means, whether it can refer to costs incurred subsequent to the sale also.... Having regard to the generality of the expression and there being nothing by way of exclusion, the plain meaning must be given effect to. That meaning is that all execution costs up-to-date, excluding those already included in the purchase money, have also to be deposited as a condition for setting aside the sale; there is no reason why the legislature should not insist on deposit of this amount also". We do not find the expression "costs of execution not included in the purchase money" in S.22 (1) (ii) (b). On the other hand, the relevant expression in the section is "costs of execution, where such costs were not included in the purchase money" in clause (a) of sub-section (1)(ii). We do not find the expression "costs of execution not included in the purchase money" in S.22 (1) (ii) (b). On the other hand, the relevant expression in the section is "costs of execution, where such costs were not included in the purchase money" in clause (a) of sub-section (1)(ii). If the expression were the one considered by Velu Pillai J., we agree that the reasoning of our learned brother would have great force, because the expression is quite general; and that the generality of the expression and the absence of anything by way of exclusion would have led to its plain meaning. But, the expression actually found in the section is not such a general expression. As already indicated, the costs of execution could only have been the costs which were in existence at the time of sale and could have also been included in the purchase money. Therefore, with due respect to our learned brother, we disagree with the interpretation given by him for the expression "costs of execution". The decision of the lower courts is thus correct: and the civil revision petition is dismissed, in the circumstances, without costs.