JUDGMENT Trivedi, J. - This is a decree-holder auction purchaser's second execution of decree appeal. The appellant, in execution of his decree, got the property auctioned. On 4-11-1967, the property in suit was auctioned in favour of the appellant decree- holder for a sum of Rs. 1114.65. The report of the amin was thereafter placed before the Court on 6-11-1967 on which date the Presiding Officer was on leave. The report was therefore placed on 8-11-1967. On 8-11-1967, the learned Munsif ordered the decree-holder to file the receipt of adjustment and auction fee within a period of fourteen days and thereafter the bid was put up for acceptance on 4-12-1967. Applications for refusing to confirm the sale and objections were filed in the mean time. The objection under Section 47, C. P. C. was also preferred on the ground that as the decree-holder failed to deposit 25 per cent of the purchase money as required under Order 21, Rule 84 (1) , C. P. C., the sale in favour of the decree-holder was null and void. The learned Munsif rejected the objection. The lower appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the sale. According to the lower appellate court, the failure of the decree-holder to deposit 25 per cent of the purchase money amounted to non-compliance of Rule 84 and the rule being mandatory the sale if any was void. Hence this second appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that after the amendment by the Allahabad High Court in Order 21, Rule 72 authorising the decree-holder to bid for and purchase the property, the decree-holder's liability to deposit 25 per cent of the purchase money was dispensed with. Order 21, Rule 72 reads as under : "(1) No holder of a decree in execution of which property is sold shall, without the express permission of the Court, bid for or purchase the property. (2) Where a decree-holder purchases with such permission, the purchase money and the amount due on the decree may, subject to the provisions of Section 73, be set-off against one another, and the Court executing the decree shall enter up satisfaction of the decree in whole or in part accordingly. (2) Where a decree-holder purchases with such permission, the purchase money and the amount due on the decree may, subject to the provisions of Section 73, be set-off against one another, and the Court executing the decree shall enter up satisfaction of the decree in whole or in part accordingly. (3) Where a decree-holder purchases, by himself or through another person, without such permission, the Court may, if it thinks fit on an application of the judgment-debtor or any other person whose interests are affected by the sale, by order set aside the sale; and the costs of such application and order, and any deficiency of price which may happen on the resale and all expenses attending to it, shall be paid by the decree-holder." The rule as it stood required the express permission of the Court to hid in the case of a decree-holder and clauses (2) and (3) laid down the consequences and rights of the decree-holder in case where the property was purchased with or without the permission of the Court. Rule 72 as amended by the Allahabad High Court reads as under : "Where a decree-holder purchases the property sold, the purchase money and the amount clue on the decree may, subject to the provisions of Section 73, be set-off against one another and the Court executing the decree shall enter up the satisfaction of the decree in whole or in part accordingly." The result of the Allahabad amendment is that no express permission is required by the decree-holder to bid and purchase the property sought to be sold in execution of his decree. Order 21. Rule 84 as amended by the Allahabad High Court reads as under : "(1) On every sale of immovable property the person declared to be the purchaser shall pay immediately after such declaration a deposit of 25 per cent on the amount of his purchase money to the officer or other person conducting the same and in default of such deposit the property shall forthwith be sold. (2) Where the decree-holder is the purchaser and is entitled to set-off, the purchase money under Rule 72, the Court may dispense with the requirements of this rule. (2) Where the decree-holder is the purchaser and is entitled to set-off, the purchase money under Rule 72, the Court may dispense with the requirements of this rule. "The Court shall not dispense with the requirements of this rule in a case in which there is an application for rateable distribution of assets." Order 21, Rule 85 is also relevant and reads as follows : "The full amount of purchase-money payable shall be paid by the purchaser into Court before the Court closes on the fifteenth clay from the sale of the property : Provided that, in calculating the amount to paid into Court, the purchaser shall have the advantage of any set-off to which he may be entitled under Rule 72." 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following cases which go to establish that where permission to bid has been granted under Order 21, Rule 72 an implied permission of the Court can be inferred for the purposes of Order 21, Rule 84(2). In Noorudding v. Bulakimal, AIR 193l Lahore 78 it was laid clown that "Order 21, Rule 84 (2) does not require the making of an express order exempting the decree-holder from the deposit of 25 per cent of the amount of the purchase money and that permission is accorded tinder Order 21, Rule 72 to the decree-holder to bid for and purchase the property. Such permission impliedly dispenses with the deposit of the requisite twenty five per cent." A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, consisting of Wanchoo and Dave, JJ. in Kanhaiya Lal v. Shasmal, A.I.R. 1956 Rajasthan 18, held as follows : "Reading Rules 72 and 84 of Order 21 together it is clear that where the decree-holder is permitted to bid at an auction, there is an implied dispensation and also that he need not deposit 25 per cent of the purchase money unless the sale price is more than the decretal amount. Where the sale price is more than the decretal amount the decree-holder must deposit the excess up to 25 per cent of the purchase money depending upon the excess of the sale price from the decretal amount." 4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent has placed his reliance on Manni Lal Mohan Lal v. Syed Ahmed, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 349 where it was laid down. that 0. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent has placed his reliance on Manni Lal Mohan Lal v. Syed Ahmed, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 349 where it was laid down. that 0. 21, R. 84 was mandatory. Shiva Ramayya v. Linga Reddi, A.I.R. 1966 Andhra Pradesh 201 is also relied upon by him to show that even in the case of a decree-holder purchaser it was obligatory for him to deposit 25 per cent of the purchase money under Order 21, Rule 84 (1) . In none of the cases cited by the learned counsel for the parties the impact of amended Rule 72 was considered. The question for determination is whether under Order 21, Rule 84 it was mandatory for the decree-holder purchaser to deposit 25 per cent of the purchase money in the absence of any express order of the Court dispensing the deposit or the intention of the Court dispensing the deposit could be inferred when it accepted the bid with the deposit and secondly what would be the stage at which the deposit could be dispensed with. Reading the two rules, i.e. R. 72 and R. 84 (2) of O. 21, together it is clear that while O. 21, R. 72 (1) 'mentions of express permission for act of bidding Rule 82 (2) provides for exercise of discretion of the Court about the deposit of 25 per cent of the purchase money. The stage for exercising the discretion by the Court under Rule 82 (2) can only be after the final bid is communicated to the Court and the Court is prepared to accept the bid. All that Rule 84 means is that where the auction purchaser is a stranger 25 per cent of the purchase money has to be deposited immediately after the sale but where the auction purchaser is the decree-holder and entitled to a set-off, the deposit can be deferred till the stage when the Court can dispense with the said deposit. Clauses (1) and (2) of Rule 84 have to be read together and reconciled. 5. The observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Manni Lal's case also go to support the appellant. In paragraph 8 of the judgment it has been laid down as follows "The provision regarding the deposit of 25 per cent other than the decree- holder is mandatory as the language of the rule suggests. 5. The observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Manni Lal's case also go to support the appellant. In paragraph 8 of the judgment it has been laid down as follows "The provision regarding the deposit of 25 per cent other than the decree- holder is mandatory as the language of the rule suggests. The full amount of the purchase money must be paid within fifteen days from the date of sale but the decrce-holder is entitled to the advantage of set-off." The facts of the case of Sivaraniinyya are distinguishable from those of the present case, because in that case the amount due under the decree was less than 25 per cent of the amount of the purchase money and the decree-holder purchaser having failed to deposit even the excess money that he was under liability to deposit the sale was rightly set aside. The language of Order 21, Rule 85 also indicates that the advantage of set-off cannot be refused to a decree-holder. 6. There is nothing in Rule 84 (2) requiring an express order of the Court dispensing with the deposit of 25 per cent. The right of set-off is an equitable right and once the Court accepts the bid of the decree-holder purchaser who is entitled to a set-off of the full amount it is implied that the deposit of 25 per cent was dispensed with. 7. From the sequence of facts given above it is clear that on 8-11-1967 the learned Munsif not only accepted the bid but ordered the decree-holder to file a receipt for a set-off. That being so it has to be presumed that the Court dispensed with the requirement of Order 21, Rule 84 (1) . 8. It would be coercing the decree-holder to deposit the money in cash even though he may be entitled to withdraw it and claim satisfaction in his decree. It would also be depriving the decree-holder of his right to bid for and claim a set-off in his decree if he cannot arrange to deposit cash money to the extent of 25 per cent. The lower appellate court in the circumstances was wrong in holding that the deposit contemplated under Order 21, Rule 84 was not dispensed with by the Court and that the sale was to be set aside on that account. 9. The lower appellate court in the circumstances was wrong in holding that the deposit contemplated under Order 21, Rule 84 was not dispensed with by the Court and that the sale was to be set aside on that account. 9. For the reasons given above, this appeal has to be allowed and is accordingly allowed with the result that the order of the learned Munsif stands. In the circumstances of the case, the costs throughout will be on parties.