Short Note : The facts may be briefly stated Lalchand (respondent No.2) obtained a preliminary decree for sale on the basis of a registered deed of mortgage dated 11-12-1954 in Civil Suit No. 43-A of 1964, against the mortgagor Heeralal (respondent No. 1) on 31st August, 1965. The mortgagor was directed to pay Rs. 7,000/- within two months, failing which Lalchand was entitled to apply for the decree being made final. 2. While Heeralal preferred an appeal against the preliminary decree, the trial Court made the decree final on 2-11-1965 on his failing to pay the decretal amount. Lalchand in execution of the final decree, got the mortgaged house sold. Kishanchand (the present petitioners are his legal representatives) purchased the house on 30-6-1966. 3. Heeralal then preferred an objection under Order 21, rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The same was dismissed on 5-5-1967 by the executing Court. The sale would have been confirmed immediately after the objection of the Judgment-debtor under Order 21, rule 90 CPC was dismissed but the confirmation of sale having been stayed by the appellate Court healing the appeal against the preliminary decree, the order confirming the sale could not be passed. The appeal against the preliminary decree was dismissed on 24-9-1968. 4. Heeralal then preferred a second appeal to the High Court. It was dismissed on 12-1-1976. While the second appeal was pending, the stay of confirmation of sale remained operative. 5. On 20-3-1976, one Moolchand sought permission of the Court to deposit Rs. 7,100/- on behalf of the Judgment-debtor alleging that the High Court had, while dismissing the second appeal, directed the appellant Judgment-debtor to deposit the said amount within 2 months and on such deposit being made, the sale would not be confirmed, and that the deposit was being made within 2 months from the date of the knowledge of the High Court's order. 6. The deposit was accepted by the Court. The petitioners raised objection to the deposit being accepted. They said that Moolchand had no interest in the property sold and could not, therefore make the deposit nor had he any authority for and on behalf of Heeralal to make such a deposit. Besides, the High Court had given no such direction to the appellant Heeralal to deposit the money within two months. 7. They said that Moolchand had no interest in the property sold and could not, therefore make the deposit nor had he any authority for and on behalf of Heeralal to make such a deposit. Besides, the High Court had given no such direction to the appellant Heeralal to deposit the money within two months. 7. On 23-6-1976, an application came to be made purporting to be one under Order 21, rule 89 CPC followed by another under Order 34, rule 5 CPC. These applications were made by the Judgment-debtor reiterating that he had deposited Rs. 7,100/- on 20-3-1976 through Moolchand and was willing to deposit 5% of the purchase price amounting to Rs. 556/- for payment to the auction purchaser and the balance, if any, if the Court so directed. The Judgment-debtor ultimately deposited the purchaser's commission of Rs. 556/- on 11-8-1976 and the balance of Rs. 1,625/- on 20-8-1976. 8. The executing Court has refused to confirm the sale in favour of the auction purchaser, being of the view that the Judgment-debtor could deposit the amount due under the decree along with 5% of the purchaser's money for payment to the auction purchaser any time before the sale was confirmed. Order 34, rule 5, the Court said, squarely applied. It is this order which has been challenged in revision. Held : On hearing the parties, I am of the view that the revision must be accepted. While the preliminary decree was appealed against, the appellate Court had not stayed the proceedings for making the decree final. The final decree passed by the trial Court was not, therefore, rendered invalid or inexecutable simply because an appeal was preferred against the preliminary decree. 9. The sale took place in execution of the final decree. Confirmation of sale was stayed by the appellate Court. As soon as the stay was lifted on dismissal of the second appeal, the sale got automatically confirmed since the Judgment-debtor's application under Order 21, rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure already stood dismissed on 5-5-1967. That is the law laid down in Janak Raj v. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1967 SC 608 . To the same effect is the authority of the Calcutta High Court reported in AIR 1977 Cal. 351 , Shashi Bhushan Mitra v. Ramlal Mitra. 10. That is the law laid down in Janak Raj v. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1967 SC 608 . To the same effect is the authority of the Calcutta High Court reported in AIR 1977 Cal. 351 , Shashi Bhushan Mitra v. Ramlal Mitra. 10. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have explained in Hukumchand v. Bansilal, AIR 1968 SC 86 how provisions of Order 34, rule 5(1) and Order 21, rule 92 CPC have to be harmoniously construed. Their Lordships say that after a sale has taken place in execution of a final decree, the Court has no power to extend time for payment of the decretal debt and the Court must confirm the sale under the provisions of Order 21, rule 92 on expiry of 30 days in case no application is moved under the provisions of Order, 21 rule 89 or 90, or if moved, they have been dismissed after enquiry. The confirmation of sale is automatic. 11. The executing Court has relied on Priti Rekha Mitra v. Narayan Chandra Dutta, AIR 1956 Cal. 510 for the proposition that so long the sale was not confirmed, the mortgagor had a right to redeem the property by depositing the decretal amount with 5% commission to the purchaser and that a formal, order confirming the sale was necessary. Any time before that Order was passed, the mortgagor could avail of the protection under Order 34, rule 5, CPC. With due reference, I must say that this proposition is no longer good law in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Hukumcnand's case. 12. In the result, the sale in favour of the auctior-purchaser automatically stood confirmed on the stay order being vacated on 12-1-1976. The sale could not be set aside on Judgment-debtor's depositing money from time to time up to 20-8-1976. Revision allowed.