Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the 2nd defendant in a suit for partition. A preliminary decree was passed, and item No. 13, a building, was ordered to be sold. The Commissioner appointed for the purpose sold it on 2-3-80 to the petitioner, who was the highest bidder. He deposited 25% of the price on the same day, and the balance was to be deposited within 15 days. Before the expiry of the 15-day period, on 13-3-80, he applied to the court for extension of the time for payment. The court took the view that the matter was governed by 0.21 R.85 CPC. and that it had no jurisdiction to extend time. The application was dismissed, and the 2nd defendant is now challenging that dismissal. 2. The Memorandum of Revision proceeds on the basis that the sale was by public auction; but the order impugned states that the sale was among the sharers only. Both the parties were however agreed before the court below that the sale was under the Partition Act, 1893. 3. S.2 of the Partition Act seems to contemplate a public sale, and not one limited to the sharers. Again, the sale under S.2 could only be on the request of persons interested in at least a moiety of the shares. It is not clear whether there was a request of the above kind; if there was not, the sale was probably not under the Act. 4. If the provisions of the Partition Act are not attracted, the question whether the court below had jurisdiction or not to extend time as prayed for, will have to be determined solely with reference to the Civil Procedure Code and the Civil Rules of Practice. S.122 of the Code empowers a High Court to make rules regulating the procedure in civil courts, and this includes a power to "annul, alter or add to all or any of the rules in the first Schedule". The Civil Rules of Practice are framed under S.122 of the Code, the Court-Fees and Suits valuation Act and "all other powers thereunto enabling". The Civil Rules of Practice are framed under S.122 of the Code, the Court-Fees and Suits valuation Act and "all other powers thereunto enabling". R.228 to 238 in Part C of Chapter VI of the Civil Rules of Practice deal with "Partition Suits", and Chapter VI itself provides for "special procedure in particular cases" R.228 deals with parties to a partition suit, R.229 with the requirements of the plaint and R.230 with matters to be determined at the hearing of the suit. An account of outstanding debts and liabilities is to be taken under R.231 if the court finds it necessary; and R.232 provides for an interim decree. R.233 stipulates that certain debts and liabilities have to be provided for or discharged "before any order or decree is made for the division or distribution of the joint property." Then comes R.234, reading as follows: "Order for sale. (1) When it is ordered in a partition suit that any property may be sold and proceeds divided, persons other than the co-owners shall not be permitted to bid in the sale, unless it appears to the Court that it is just and expedient to order otherwise. (2) The sale when the bid is not open to strangers shall be held in open court on a day to which the case is adjourned for the purpose. The highest bid shall be accepted and the sale confirmed at once unless the sale is adjourned to some other date. (3) The co-sharer purchasing at the sale shall not ordinarily be obliged, to deposit the sale price in Court at once and the amount may be debited against him in the final adjustment of accounts in the case if the value of his share in the entire assets will be sufficient to cover the sale price. The Court shall record in the proceedings the date and time of sale, the amounts of the several bids the name of the purchaser and whether the sale price has been deposited or allowed to be retained for future adjustment. The property so purchased shall be allotted in the final decree to the share of the purchaser at the value of the bid confirmed and accepted by the Court. The property so purchased shall be allotted in the final decree to the share of the purchaser at the value of the bid confirmed and accepted by the Court. (4) If any such purchaser on being so ordered, fails to deposit the sale price within the time allowed by the Court, the property shall be resold at his risk and the loss, if any resulting from the resale together with the cost of the adjourned sale may be realised from him or debited against his share. (5) Where the Court considers that the interests of the parties will be better served by ordering a sale, open for the bid of the general public, the Court may appoint an auctioner and shall fix his remuneration for the purpose, and may give the necessary directions relating to the place, time and manner of publication and conduct of the sale and shall direct any of the parties to deposit in Court any sum required for the publication and conduct of the sale. Properties or assets sold by the Court in the course of a partition suit shall he delivered over to the purchaser with the documents of title. The Court may also direct the co-sharers or the receiver to execute a deed of conveyance to the purchaser at his cost and may, if necessary, appoint a receiver for the purpose." Rule 235 prescribes the additional particulars to be included in the final decree. R.236 insists that the court "shall, in its final Judgment in a partition suit", direct the parties to deposit the amount required for stamp paper for engrossing the decree. 5. The sequence indicates that the sale provided for in R.234 is a sale to be made before the passing of the final decree. The rule contemplates an order for sale, and sub-rule (4), in particular, envisages the fixation of a time by the court within which the sale price is to be deposited. And when time is so fixed by the court itself, it can extend it under S.148 or S.151. 6. 0.21 of the Code is concerned with execution of decrees or orders. When immovable property is to be sold in execution, the prescriptions of R.64 to 73 and 82 to 96 apply. R.85 requires the deposit of the "full amount of purchase" within 15 days. 6. 0.21 of the Code is concerned with execution of decrees or orders. When immovable property is to be sold in execution, the prescriptions of R.64 to 73 and 82 to 96 apply. R.85 requires the deposit of the "full amount of purchase" within 15 days. The time for payment is fixed by the rule itself and not by the court, so that if the rule is applicable, the court could not enlarge time. But the sale in the case on hand was not made in execution of any decree; in fact, the final decree in the suit is yet to be passed. 0.21 R.85 is therefore not applicable; what is applicable is R.234 of the Civil Rules of Practice. The court in this case had therefore jurisdiction to extend the time for deposit. 7. What then will be the position if the provisions of the Partition Act are attracted? Counsel submits that there are no decisions directly covering the point. S.7 lays down that the procedure to be adopted for a sale under the Act shall be: "such procedure as the High Court may from time to time by rules prescribe in this behalf, and until such rules are made, the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of sales in execution of decrees". The Section itself recognises the distinction between sales under the Act, and sales in execution of decrees;' the procedure in respect of the latter is to be adopted, "as far as practicable", till such time as the High Court prescribes rules for such sales. R.234 of the Civil Rules of Practice can be considered as a rule framed by the High Court within the meaning of the first part of clause (b) of S.7 of the Partition Act; it is a rule framed by virtue of all powers thereunto enabling". If this is so, the Rules in 0.21 of the Code for sales in execution of decrees are not applicable to sales made in pursuance of an order of court under the Partition Act; what applies will again be the prescriptions of the Rules of Practice 8. Mr. N. Subramonian for the respondents attempted to place reliance - on S.8 of the Partition Act which provides that an order for sale made under S.2 is to be deemed to be a decree under the Code. Mr. N. Subramonian for the respondents attempted to place reliance - on S.8 of the Partition Act which provides that an order for sale made under S.2 is to be deemed to be a decree under the Code. The argument is that the order in this case has to be treated as a decree so as to attract the rules in 0.21 of the Code. But S.8 cannot be read in isolation; it has to be read along with S.7. When S.7 deals with the procedure for sale, the fiction in S.8 can extend only to matters other than procedure; otherwise, S.7 would be redundant. In other words, an order for sale under S.2 can be treated as a decree only for purposes other than procedure.. For example, the order could be appealed against as if it were a decree. 9. To conclude, the court below erred in thinking that the embargo of of Or. 21 R.85 prevented it from considering on merits, the application for extension of time. The matter is governed by R.234 of the Civil Rules of Practice and the court has jurisdiction to extend time, if that course is justified on the facts of the case. I therefore set aside its order and direct that the application be disposed of on merits, of course, after taking due note of the objections raised by the respondents. Allowed as above. No costs.