P. A. KULKARNI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a revision by the auction purchaser against the order dated October 4, 1985, passed by the Munsif, Dharwar, in Execution Case No. 54 of 1984, setting aside the sale dated July 26, 1985. ( 2 ) THE decree-holder brought the property of the judgment-debtor to sale. The final bid was held on July 26, 1985, and it was accepted on the same day. The judgment-debtor deposited the amount on August 29, 1985. There was some slight deficit in the amount and it was also deposited on September 6, 1985. On September 6, 1985 itself, the judgment-debtor filed an application under Order 21, rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the sale. ( 3 ) THE auction purchaser resisted this petition. The trial court overruled the objections of the auction purchaser and set aside the sale. Hence, the revision by the auction purchaser. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel, Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, contended that under Order 21, rule 92 (2) of the code of Civil Procedure, the judgment-debtor should deposit the amount within thirty days from the date of the sale or in case where the amount deposited is found to be a deficit owing to any clerical or arithmetical mistake on the part of the depositor, such deficiency has been made good within such time as may be fixed by the court. It is undisputed that the entire amount has been deposited within sixty days from the date of sale. The learned counsel, Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, contended that when rule 92 (2) of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes a period of thirty days for making the deposit and if the deposit is not made within thirty days, the sale cannot be set aside at all. ( 5 ) ORDER 21, rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows : " (1) Where immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree, any person claiming an interest in the property sold at the time of the sale or at the time of making the application, or acting for or in the interest of such person, may apply to have the sale set aside on his depositing in court, - therefore, the application filed under rule 89 of Order 21 must be accompanied by the deposit. There cannot be an application under rule 89 of Order 21 without deposit. Therefore, the maintainability of the application under Order 21, rule 89, depends only on the deposit of the amount. If there is no deposit made along with the application, then the application would not be competent. The learned author, Sri Mulla, in his Code of Civil Procedure, Fourteenth Edition, at page 1609, has said : "the words 'may apply to have the sale set aside on his depositing in court,' etc. , show that not only the application, but also the deposit, should made within 30 days from the date of sale. It is not enough to make the application within 30 days. Nor it is enough to make the deposit within 30 days. Both the application and the deposit must be made within 30 days from the date of sale. " ( 6 ) ARTICLE 127 of the Limitation Act has been amended by Act No. 104 of 1976. The said amendment Act has prescribed 60 days in place of 30 days regarding article 127. Therefore, the period of limitation now after the said amendment Act is sixty days. It is only under article 127 of the Limitation Act that a person is required to file an application under Order 21, rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the period of limitation for filing an application under order 21, rule 89, is sixty days now. ( 7 ) AS already stated above, no application can be made under Order 21, rule 89, without deposit. Therefore, in view of the amendment, which gives a period of sixty days to the judgment-debtor to file an application, the requirement of Order 21, rule 92 (2), CPC, that the deposit should be made within thirty days, would be rather irreconcilable and contradictory. In Thangammal v. K. Dhanalakshmi, AIR1981 Mad 254 , it is held that a combined reading of october 21, rule 89, and Order 21, rule 92 (2), shows that the deposit also could be made within sixty days from the date of sale. ( 8 ) IT is unfortunate that it has escaped the notice of the authorities concerned that there is inconsistency in the period prescribed under article 127 of the Limitation Act and the period of thirty days prescribed under rule 92 (2) of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 8 ) IT is unfortunate that it has escaped the notice of the authorities concerned that there is inconsistency in the period prescribed under article 127 of the Limitation Act and the period of thirty days prescribed under rule 92 (2) of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is for the authorities concerned to amend the period of thirty days mentioned in rule 92 (2) of Order 21 in order to bring it in conformity with the period of limitation of sixty days prescribed by article 127 of the Limitation Act. Otherwise the consequences would lead to unnecessary litigation. Therefore, it is hoped that the authorities concerned would amend Order 21, rule 92 (2) of the code of Civil Procedure. ( 9 ) ORDER 21, rule 89 and Order 21, rule 92 (2), will have to be interpreted in order to bring about a harmonious result. If that is done, then the deposit made within sixty days should be considered sufficient to meet the requirement of law. Therefore, under these circumstances, the order passed by the lower court setting aside the sale cannot be questioned. ( 10 ) THEREFORE, the revision is dismissed. No costs.