JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. - This is an Execution Second Appeal by the judgment-debtor. The first set of respondents Nos. 1 to 5 are the auction-purchasers and respondent No. 6 is the decree-holder. The decree under execution was a money decree passed on the 31st Jan. 1969. in Suit No. 31 of 1968 of the court of the Civil Judge. Etah. It appears that one-third share of the judgment-debtor in certain plots of land had been attached before judgment. The execution application made on the 12th Sept. 197( shows that the plot numbers had subsequently undergone a change in consolidation proceedings. The property, as described in the execution application, was put up for sale and auctioned on the 18th Dec. 197)) by the said court of Civil Judge. Etah. in Execution Case No. 41 of 1970 for Rs. 20,000/- in favour of Ram Ratan son of Murabbi Lai. The auction-purchasers respondents Nos.1 to 5 appear to he his heirs and legal representatives. 2. The auction-purchasers appear to have deposited the balance three-fourth of the sale consideration on the 4th Jan. 1971. This was done two days beyond time inasmuch as under R. 85 of O. 21 of the Civil P. C. the full amount of the purchase money has to be paid by the purchasers into court before the court closes on the 15th day from the sale of the property and the sale having taken place on tote 18th Dec. 1970 the 15th day from that date was the 2nd Jan. 1971. I have checked up the calendar of the year 1971 maintained in this Court for the subordinate courts. The 2nd Jan. 1971 was Saturday and a working day. 3. It, however, appears that the decree- holder did not deposit the poundage and on the 18th Jan 1971 the Executing Court passed the following order: "The sale is set aside. The executing application is dismissed for want of prosecution with costs on D. H.". 4. The decree-holder made an application for recalling that order and restoration of the execution case under S. 151 of the Civil P. C. on the ground that the sale could not he set aside and the execution could not be struck off on account of non-payment of poundage. The amount of poundage could he recovered from the amount deposited by the auction-purchasers. This application was allowed by the executing court's order. The amount of poundage could he recovered from the amount deposited by the auction-purchasers. This application was allowed by the executing court's order. D/-the 1st May. 1971. which only says that the ground for restoration is sufficient, and that the application is allowed. This order was passed without any notice to the judgment-debtor, and on the 10th May 1971 after the execution case was restored, the decree-holder was allowed 14 days time to deposit the poundage. The sale was thereafter confirmed on the 2nd June, 1971. On the 24th July. 1971, the amount of Rs. 20.000/- was applied towards satisfaction of the amount of the decree in execution of which the sale had taken place and other decrees against the judgment-debtor. The sum of Rs. 262.09 premained in balance. The judgment-debtor was held entitled to receive it back and the execution application was dismissed in full satisfaction. 5. The judgment-debtor then made an application D/- the 18th September, 1971, praying that the order D/- the 1st May, 1971. restoring the execution case be reviewed and cancelled. Several grounds were taken. The first was that notice was not issued to the judgment-debtor. The second was that the application was not duly signed or verified by the decree-holder, but was signed merely by the counsel for the decree- holder. The third was that the plots sold were not those which had been attached but were different plots. The fourth group was that after the dismissal of the execution case and setting aside of the sale on the "23rd Jan. 1971," the execution case could not be restored inasmuch as the decree- holder was bound in law to make a fresh application for execution and to again have the property attached and sold. The fifth objection was that after the setting aside of the sale by order dated the "23rd Jan. 1971" the property must have been resold within 15 days therefrom and in the absence of any such resale the entire proceedings for sale automatically came to an end and the subsequent proceedings for sale are wholly null and void. The judgment-debtor pleaded that he came to know of these proceedings for the first time on the 12th Sept., 1971. An application for stopping the delivery of possession was also made. There was no proceeding for delivery of possession pending on that day and the application was thereupon rejected. The judgment-debtor pleaded that he came to know of these proceedings for the first time on the 12th Sept., 1971. An application for stopping the delivery of possession was also made. There was no proceeding for delivery of possession pending on that day and the application was thereupon rejected. When the proceeding for delivery of possession was commenced. the judgment-debtor again applied for stopping the same on the 7th Oct. 1971 and the executing court staved the delivery of possession by an ad interim order dated the 7th Oct. 1971, which appears to have been confirmed on the 13th Oct. 1971. In these proceedings for review and recalling of the order, dated the 1st May, 1971, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 121 of 1971. the decree-holder filed a certified copy of a sale- deed dated the 23rd July, 1969 executed by the judgment-debtor in favour of one Ram Kripal son of Ram Narain, whereby the plots of land said to have been allotted to the judgment-debtor after consolidation according to the execution application, and may be some other plots of land too, were sold for Rs. 10,000/-. The aforesaid application of the judgment-debtor dated the 18th Sept. 1971 was allowed by the executing court's order dated the 13th Nov. 1972 and the order dated the 1st May, 1971 was set aside. The decree- holder's application dated the 12th Feb. 1971 was again taken up and considered by the executing court and allowed by its order dated the 3rd. Feb. 1973. The order dated the 18th Jan. 1971 was again set aside and the Execution Case No. 41 of 1970 was restored to its original number. 6. The proceedings which had been taken after the order dated 1st May, 1971, namely, the order confirming the sale on 2nd June 1971 and the order dated 24th July. 1971 applying the sale proceeds towards satisfaction of the amount of the decree in execution of which the sale had taken place and the other decrees against the judgment-debtor on rateable distribution, were neither questioned nor re-opened. The proceedings for delivery of possession which had been stayed in the meanwhile were revived and, by an order dated 16th Mar. 1973, the execution court directed issue of warrant of delivery of possession in pursuance of which possession was in due course delivered to the auction purchaser, on 1st June, 1973. The proceedings for delivery of possession which had been stayed in the meanwhile were revived and, by an order dated 16th Mar. 1973, the execution court directed issue of warrant of delivery of possession in pursuance of which possession was in due course delivered to the auction purchaser, on 1st June, 1973. The first thing which struck me in this case was the fact that after the setting aside of the order dated 18th Jan. 1971, by the executing court's order dated 3rd Feb. 1973, the proceedings of confirmation of sale and satisfaction of the decree in execution of which the sale was made and of the other decrees towards which the sale proceeds were applied on rateable distribution were not re-opened. and proceedings for delivery of possession were re-started and possession delivered without anything more. 7. The order dated 3rd Feb. 1973 reads as under : "3 C2 is allowed and order dated 18-1-1971 is set aside and the Execution Case No. 41 of 1970 is restored to-its original number. Costs easy." The above order has, therefore, to he read as meaning that the earlier order dated 1st May, 1971 setting aside the order pit. 18th Jan. 1971 was restored and all the proceedings taken after 1st May, 1971 were also restored and revived. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case I read the order dated 3rd Feb. 1973 in that light. The effect of doing so is that the judgment-debtor did not have an opportunity of objecting to the confirmation of the sale which he might have done in case the order dated 1st May. 1971 had been passed after notice to him. The result is that the objection under S. 47 of the Civil P. C., which was filed on 7th Sept. 1971 had been passed after notice to him. The result is that the objection under S. 47 of the Civil P. C., which was filed on 7th Sept. 1972 (Miscellaneous Case No. 116 of 1972) and has given rise to this second appeal, could not be thrown out simply on the ground that the judgment-debtor objector should have rajsed, this abjection before the confirmation of the sale and his not having done so is a bar to the raising of the objection at the stage as it was raised, namely, not only after the confirmation of the sale but also after the amount of sale proceeds had been applied in satisfaction of the decrees against him and not only the decree in execution of which the sale was made but also in satisfaction of a few other decrees on rateable distribution. There is, however, one basic infirmity in the proceedings taken on this objection under S. 47. It lies in the fact that the decree-holders of execution cases Nos. 68 of 1970, 69 of 1970 and 70 of 1970 who have taken away the sums of Rs. 6875- 81 p., Rs. 3,192.65 p. and Rs. 2,19.1-40 p. respectively on rateable distribution, under the order dated 24th July, 1971 do not appear to have been made parties, and it would be impossible to set aside the appropriation of the sale proceeds by which they benefited under that order and if that cannot he done it would be difficult to declare the sale a nullity unless the judgment-debtor who has filed the objection is willing to refund the entire amount of the consideration for the sale, namely. Rs. 20.000/- to the auction- purchaser. I say so because the only ground on which the validity of the sale has now been challenged is that although 25% of the amount of the bid was deposited at the spot on 18th Dec. 1970, the balance dated th amount was not deposited in court within the period of 15 days prescribed by R. 85 of O. 21 of the Civil P. C. The mistake was of the court in having accepted the tender of Rs. 15.000/- on 4th Jan. 1971, 2 days beyond time. The question is about the consequences which follow from that mistake. 8. 15.000/- on 4th Jan. 1971, 2 days beyond time. The question is about the consequences which follow from that mistake. 8. In Manilal Mohan Lal Shah v. Sardar Saved Ahmed Sayed Mohammad ( AIR 1954 SC 349 ) the Supreme Court enunciated the law thus (at p. 351) : "The provision regarding the deposit of 25 per cent, by the purchaser 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 the sale but the decree-holder is entitled to the advantage of a set-off. The provision for payment is, however, mandatory. (R. 85). If the payment is not made within the period of fifteen days, the court has the discretion to forfeit the deposit and there the discretion ends but the obligation of the court to re-sell the property is imperative. A further consequence of non-payment is that the defaulting) purchaser forfeits all claim to the property. (R. 86)." 9. The property cannot be re-sold unless the decree in execution of which it was attached remains to be satisfied. Under the order dated 24th July, 1971 the decree has already been satisfied. Only the decree- holder in execution of whose decree the sale was made is a party to these proceedings. The other decree-holders who were allowed the benefit of rateable distribution are not parties to these proceedings. Unless the amounts paid to these decree-holders are refunded, there could be no question of a re- sale of the property. Assuming that the sale could be declared a nullity and the decree- holder in execution of whose decree the sale was made is compelled to refund the amount received by him so as to authorise a re-sale, the auction-purchaser can still insist on a refund of at least Rs. 15.000/-. even if it were to be assumed that the court forfeited Rs. 5000/- which was th of the amount of the bid. The amount paid to the decree- holder was only Rs. 7,476-05 P. that is, less than half of Rs. 15,000/-. The balance has yet to be found. If the sale is set aside, the only other persons who could be required to refund the amount of sale proceeds would be the decree-holders of execution cases Nos. 68, 69 and 70 of 1970. 7,476-05 P. that is, less than half of Rs. 15,000/-. The balance has yet to be found. If the sale is set aside, the only other persons who could be required to refund the amount of sale proceeds would be the decree-holders of execution cases Nos. 68, 69 and 70 of 1970. The judgment-debtor did not make them parties to these proceedings. The result is that the decree- holders of those cases cannot be required to refund those amounts as the appropriation of the same by them on rateable distribution cannot be set aside on the present objection of the judgment-debtor behind their backs. The only remaining possibility is that the judgment-debtor himself pays into courts the entire amount of the sale proceeds, viz. Rs. 20,000/- as he is the person who has benefited by it. The decree against him stand satisfied by appropriation of that amount, and if that is done although the sale will be set aside it would not be necessary to re-sell the property, but it would come back to him. On the peculiar facts of this case that seemed to be the only course open and I proceeded to hear the case further on the basis that even if the sale is found to be a nullity, it would be set aside only on payment of Rs. 20,000/- by the judgment debtor into court so that the amount of the sale proceeds may he refunded to the auction purchaser. 10. As observed above, the on 1% objection raised by the present objection to the validity of the sale was that the th balance of the price bid on 18th Dec. 1970 was not deposited within 15 days from the said date. The law declared by the Supreme Court in Manilal Mohan Lal Shah v. Sardar Sayed Ahmed Sayed Mahmad ( AIR 1954 SC 349 ), has already been quoted above. The sale is, therefore, liable to he set aside as a nullity but the mistake was of the court in accepting tender of Rs. 15,000, - on 4th Jan. 1971; and under all the circumstances of this case the entire amount of Rs. 2000/ - should be refunded to the auction purchaser. The sale is, therefore, liable to he set aside as a nullity but the mistake was of the court in accepting tender of Rs. 15,000, - on 4th Jan. 1971; and under all the circumstances of this case the entire amount of Rs. 2000/ - should be refunded to the auction purchaser. That could be done only if the judgment-debtor was prepared to deposit it as he is the person who has derived the benefit by the appropriation of that amount towards satisfaction of the decree against him. 11. I may here notice that although the objection was allowed by the executing court and the sale was declared it nullity the lower appellate court dismissed the objection on the ground that the decree- holder was no longer the owner of the property and could not apply to get the sale declared void. The sale-deed dated 18th July, 1969 executed by the judgment-debtor Siya Ram in favour of Ram Kripal was referred to and relied upon in this connection. That sale-deed' is on record having been filed in Misc. Case No. 121 of 1971. The argument which appealed to the lower appellate court was that the judgment-debtor had no interest in the property and it was for Ram Kripal to have cone forward either under O. 21 R. 58 or under S. 47 of the Civil P. C. The lower appellate court held' that the judgment-debtor's objection was not maintainable. I do not know as to who raised this objection, but since the lower appellate court has noticed it as the last point that was urged before it, it must have been raised on behalf of the auction purchaser to defeat the judgment-debtor's/ objection. Now, if the judgment-debtor had no interest left in the property which was sold in execution of the decree it is the auction purchaser who suffers most, for if that was the position, he purchased nothing at the auction sale, inasmuch as only the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor can be sold in execution of a decree against him. This objection to the maintainability of the objection under S. 47 of the Civil P. C.. which found favour with the lower appellate court was a self destructive objection. It amounts to it declaration that nothing passed at the sale. This objection to the maintainability of the objection under S. 47 of the Civil P. C.. which found favour with the lower appellate court was a self destructive objection. It amounts to it declaration that nothing passed at the sale. On the other hand if the sale was valid as the auction purchaser must contend in the very nature of things, it must have been the judgment-debtor's right title and interest which was purchased by the auction purchaser, and if that were so the judgment-debtor's objection could not be defeated on the ground that he, the judgment-debtor had no interest in the property sold. Indeed. S. 47 postulates that the judgment-debtor can always object to the execution discharge or satisfaction of the decree. 12. In the result the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are set aside and instead the order passed by the executing court. It is ordered that the auction sale of the properties of the judgment debtor which took place on 18th Dec. 1970 in execution case No. 41 of 1970 arising from suit No. 31 of 1968 of the court of the Civil Judge. Etah shall be declared a nullity and possession of the properties that was delivered to the auction purchaser on 1st June. 1973 shall he restored to the judgment-debtor-appellant. in case the judgment-debtor deposits, within six months from to-day, the sum of Rs. 20,000/- in the executing court for refund of the entire sale price to the legal representatives of the auction purchaser. In case the amount is not deposited within the said period of six months, the judgment-debtor-appellant's objection shall stand dismissed. In either case the parties are left to bear their own costs throughout.