JUDGMENT Virender Kumar, J. - This is an appeal by the appellant-judgment debtors against the order dated 1-9-1975 of the District Judge, Kumaon, Nainital, confirming the sale dated 10-3-1973 in respect of the property of the appellant-judgment debtors. 2. In execution of the decree against the appellant-judgment debtors their property was put to auction sale on 10-3-1973. The highest bid was Rs. 14,000/- by the respondents. In sale proclamation the valuation of the property was assessed Rs. 15,000/-. The appellant-judgment debtors raised a number of objections in respect of the auction sale. The objection of the judgment debtors were disposed of by the Additional Civil Judge under his order dated 19-5-1973. The Additional Civil Judge upheld the objections of the judgment debtors that there was an illegality due to not depositing th of the auction-sale money the auction purchaser in case just on the close of the auction. He, therefore, set aside the auction sale. 3. The auction purchaser-respondent went up in appeal before the District Judge, Kumaon, Nainital and he set aside the order of Additional Civil Judge by his order dated 1-9-1975. He also ordered for confirmation of the sale. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Judge, Kumaon the judgment debtors have come up in appeal. Learned counsel for the judgment debtors raised the objection that the auction sale is quite invalid and illegal and deserves to be set aside for the reasons that the auction purchaser has failed to deposit 25% of the auction sale money at the time of the auction and this was in breach of Order XXI Rule 84 C.P.C. Order XXI Rule 84 C.P.C. is being reproduced below :- "(1) On every sale of immovable property the person declared to be the purchaser shall pay immediately after such declaration a deposit of twenty-five percent on the amount of this purchase-money to the officer or other person conducting the sale, and in default of such deposit, the property shall forthwith be resold. (2) Where the decree-holder is the purchaser and is entitled to set-off the purchase-money under rule 72, the Court may dispense with the requirements of this rule." No doubt, as required by the said Rule the auction purchaser was to deposit 25% of the amount of the auction bid at the time of the auction, but it was not laid down that the deposit was to be made in cash or by cheque. In the instant case the auction purchaser had paid a cheque of the amount of 25% of the auction sale at the time of the auction sale. It seems that the said cheque was then accepted by the concerned authority. It was three days thereafter that the auction purchaser-respondent withdrew the cheque with the permission of the Court and in its place paid 25% of the amount of the purchase money in cash. Hence there has been compliance of Rule 84 C.P.C. The learned counsel for appellants has referred to the citation in the auction sale proclamation (paper No. 50/C) which is to the effect that the auction bidder on acceptance of his bid was to deposit 25% of the auction sale money in cash at the time of auction sale. In this connection, it is material to note that the auction sale proclamation was issued on behalf of the approved Government auctioneer before the auction sale. It terms and conditions do not constitute statutory provisions. On the other hand, as already mentioned above, the statutory provisions under Order XXI rule 84 C.P.C. have laid no restriction that the deposit of 25% of the auction sale money must be paid in cash and not by cheque. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to a certified copy of a Division Bench case of this Court (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11 of 1980 Narendra Prakash Goel v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 23-9-1981 in support of his contention that due to not depositing 25% of the auction sale money in cash at the time of auction sale, the sale will stand invalidated resulting into a fresh auction sale. It is quite distinguishable. In that case, the auction purchaser had failed to deposit the purchase money within the prescribed time. 5. It is quite distinguishable. In that case, the auction purchaser had failed to deposit the purchase money within the prescribed time. 5. The second point pressed from the side of the appellants is that the appellants have raised two other points in the objection filed under Order XXI rule 90 C.P.C. which were not disposed of by the execution court. It is contended that Mohan Singh Rawat was not authorised to conduct the auction sale. This point was dealt with by the execution court of Additional Civil Judge, who has clearly found that Mohan Singh Rawat was approved agent of the Government auctioneer Gopal Singh Rawat and was authorised to conduct the sale. 6. The second point raised is that the appellant-judgment debtors had taken up the plea that the valuation of the property put to sale was about 30,000/- but this question was not gone into and decided by the execution court before the property was put to auction. In this connection, I find that the courts below have covered this point in their judgments. It is evident from their judgments that the appellant-judgment debtors have adduced no evidence, in this connection. If the judgment debtors had taken up the plea that the valuation of the property was Rs. 30,000/- and not Rs. 15,000/- as laid down in the sale proclamation, the burden obviously lay on the judgment debtors to make out the plea of the valuation being Rs. 30,000/-, But the judgment debtors failed to do so. The appeal has absolutely no merits and is liable to fail. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. The order of stay passed by this Court stands vacated.