JUDGMENT V.K. Mehrotra, J. - This revision u/s 115 CPC was instituted in this Court on May 13, 1977. It is directed against orders passed by the Civil Judge, Ballia and affirmed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Ballia refusing to consider the objections made by the applicant in execution proceedings. 2. Applicant Jagdish Kunwar is a judgment-debtor in a decree for realisation of a sum of Rs. 6238.10. Some land belonging to him was to be auctioned in execution of the decree. This was on October 8, 1975. The case of the applicant is that towards satisfaction of the decree, he had deposited a sum of Rs. 1350/- and the deposit was taken note of by the executing Court on an earlier occasion when he had put in an objection u/s 47 Code of Civil Procedure. That objection, according to the applicant, was allowed but without pursuing the matter in accordance with law, the decree-holder-opposite party put the decree in execution once again and surreptitiously got the property auction sold for a petty amount. The decree-holder was himself the auction purchaser. 3. The case of the applicant is that when he learnt about the same he filed a fresh objection u/s 47 CPC but on legal advice applied to the executing Court on October 27, 1975 that the objection may be treated to be one under Rule 90 of Order 21 CPC read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure. This application is paper No. 4-Ga on the record of the case. It is also the case of the applicant that on 6-12-1975 he made another application (Paper No. 8-Ga) seeking to amend the title of his objection u/s 47 CPC to one under Rule 90 of Order 21 Code of Civil Procedure. 4. The Executing Court rejected the objection on December 11, 1975 as not maintainable. The view taken was that it was incumbent upon the judgment-debtor to have deposited 12 1/2% of the amount for which the property had been auction sold and since admittedly he had failed to do so he was not entitled to a consideration of his objection on merits on account of Rule 90 of Order 21 CPC as amended by this Court in its application Uttar Pradesh. The view taken by the Executing Court was affirmed in appeal by the Additional District Judge. 5. The view taken by the Executing Court was affirmed in appeal by the Additional District Judge. 5. Rule 90 of Order 21 was amended by this Court and it was provided that no application to set aside a sale shall be entertained under Rule 90 unless the applicant deposits such amount, "not exceeding 12 1/2% of the sum realised by the sale or furnishes such security as the Court may, in its discretion, fix except when for reasons to be recorded it dispenses with the requirements of this clause. The other part of the Rule or of the amendment made by this Court is not relevant in the instant case. 6. A perusal of the rule makes it clear beyond doubt that it is not necessary for the maintainability of an objection under Rule 90 of Order 21 CPC that the objector should, by himself, deposit a sum equivalent to 12 1/2 % of the amount for which the property was sold at the auction. On the contrary, what appears clear from a reading of the provision is that when an objection is made under Rule 90, the Court shall in its discretion, fix an amount, not exceeding 12 1/2 % of the sale price, which the objector should deposit before his objection is entertained. In other words, before the objection is decided on its merits, the objector will have to deposit an amount fixed by the Court under this provision. 7. The discretion which the Court has under this rule, extends also to dispensing with the requirement of depositing any amount or furnishing security if, for reasons to be recorded, the Court so directs. The rule also contemplates that in lieu of deposit of any amount, the Court may direct the objector to furnish security to an extent required by the Court from him. 8. The Courts below were clearly in error in thinking that without making a deposit equivalent to 12 1/2 % of the amount of sale price, the objections filed by the applicant could not be considered on merits. It is on this erroneous view of law that they have refused to go into the objection of the applicant on its merits. They have clearly refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them of considering an objection under Rule 90 of Order 21 CPC on merits. 9. It is on this erroneous view of law that they have refused to go into the objection of the applicant on its merits. They have clearly refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them of considering an objection under Rule 90 of Order 21 CPC on merits. 9. The orders passed by the Courts below have to be set aside and the matter deserves to be sent back to the Executing Court for decision in accordance with law. Counsel for the parties are agreed that at no stage of the proceedings before the Executing Court was the applicant required by the Court to deposit any amount not exceeding 12 1/2 % or asked to furnish security for any part of the sale price. Now that the matter is going back to the Executing Court, it would be open to that Court to take a decision about this aspect of the matter as well, but in doing so, it shall take into account the deposit of Rs. 1350/- which, according to Sri. R. Pandey appearing for the applicant, has already been deposited. Sri. Pandey also urged that during the pendency of the revision in this Court, various amounts were deposited by the applicant which now total to a sum of Rs. 5722.25 which, coupled with the sum of Rs. 1350/- deposited earlier by the applicant, has the effect of satisfying the decree fully. This is an aspect which should more appropriately be urged before the Executing Court. 10. The revision succeeds and the matter is sent back to the Executing Court as aforesaid. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. The record of the Court below will be sent back forthwith to enable it to proceed further in the matter.