JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code has been filed against the judgement dated August 4, 1987 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S. Byas in S.B. Civil Execution Second Appeal No. 10 of 1974, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated May 13, 1974 dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated May 13, 1974 by which he affirmed the order of the Civil Judge, Hanumangarh dated December 21, 1973, dismissing the objection petition moved under Order 21 Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code of the Judgement-debtor-petitioner. The facts of the case giving rise to this review petition may be summarised thus. 2. On May 10, 1956, the decree-holder Champalal obtained a decree for recovery of certain amount against the judgement-debtor-petitioner Narain Das. On May 22, 1968, third execution application was moved for the recovery of the balance amount of Rs. 9,588/-. An immovable property situated in the town of Sangaria belonging to the judgement-debtor was attached. It was put to auction sale. Permission was granted to the decree-holder under Order 21 Rule 72, Civil Procedure Code to take part in the bid. His bid, being highest, was accepted. The judgement-debtor-petitioner moved an objection petition under Order 21 Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the sale on various grounds. After taking reply of the decree-holder and recording the evidence of the parties, the executing court (Civil Judge, Hanumangarh) rejected the objection petition. His appeal was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar on May 13, 1974 and his second appeal was dismissed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S. Vyas on August 4, 1987. 3. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the judgment-debtor-petitioner that admittedly sale proclamation for the sale of the judgement-debtor's property situated in the town of Sangaria was issued for 3rd, 4th and 5th October, 1968 and the attached property was also put to auction on 7th October, 1968 in the court premises at Hanumangarh despite the fact that the sale proclamation was not issued for the auction sale on 7th October and also for the auction in the court premises at Hanumangarh. He further contended that these facts escapped the notice of this Court and on this ground alone the review petition deserves to be allowed and the auction sale should be set aside. He also contended that the decree-holder did not deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 1391/- within 15 days of the acceptance of the bid and it was deposited after about 5 years thereof. He lastly contended that this Court did not take into consideration that the judgement-debtor-petitioner deposited the entire decretal amount in the executing court on October 8, 1974. 4. In reply, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the non-petitioners (the heirs of decree-holder late Champalal) that the auction in the court premises was permissible and no fresh proclamation was required to be issued if the auction was held within 7 days of the dates notified in the sale proclamation. He further contended that these objections have been raised for the first time after 20 years and the judgement under review cannot be set aside on this ground. He also contended that the review petition cannot be allowed by another judge even if he takes another view of the matter. He relied upon Davarqju Pillat v. Sellayya Pillai, AIR 1987 S.C. 1160 . He also contended that the deposit of Rs. 9,885/- by the judgement-debtor was not within limitation and as such auction sale could not be set aside. He relied upon P.K. Unni v. Ninnala Industries, AIR 1990 S.C. 937 . He lastly contended that the said objections cannot now be permitted to be raised in the review petition as they were not taken before the executing court, first appellate court and also before this Court in second appeal. He relied upon Smt. Pushpa v. Ganpat Singh, AIR 1977 Raj. 226 . 5. Admittedly, the review petition has been filed on the aforesaid two grounds which were not taken before the executing court, first appellate court and also before this Court in second appeal. It is not in dispute that the sale proclamation was issued for 3rd, 4th and 5th October, 1968. The provisions of Order 21 Rule 69, Civil Procedure Code permitted the adjournment of auction sale for 7 days without issuing fresh proclamation. It is not in dispute that the sale proclamation was issued for 3rd, 4th and 5th October, 1968. The provisions of Order 21 Rule 69, Civil Procedure Code permitted the adjournment of auction sale for 7 days without issuing fresh proclamation. It is not denied that auction duly look place near the attached property on 3rd, 4th and 5th October and, thereafter, it took place on 7th October in the court premises at Hanumangarh. The proviso of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 69ORDER21 permitted the sale in the precincts of the court also. 6. An application for setting aside the sale under Order 21 Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code lies on the ground of material irregularities and fraud in publishing or conducting the auction sale. The objection regarding the non-payment of full amount of the purchase money is beyond the scope of this rule. Such an objection lies under Order 21 Rule 85, Civil Procedure Code It can be taken at any time before the confirmation of the sale. It is stated in the review petition that the remaining amount of Rs. 1391/- was deposited by the decree-holder after about five years of the auction sale. The decree-holder-non-petitioner Nathu Ram has filed his counter affidavit in reply to the stay application and its supporting affidavit of the Judgement-debtor. This fact of depositing the remaining amount of Rs. 1391/- after about 5 years of the auction sale has not been controverted. It is admitted in the counter affidavit that the sale has not as yet been confirmed. It may also be mentioned here that on September 15, 1987 this Court passed order that meanwhile sale will not be confirmed, if not so far confirmed. The provisions of Order 21 Rule 85, Civil Procedure Code are mandatory. It has been observed in Manilal Mohanlal Shah and Ors. v. Sardar Sayed Ahmed Sayed Mohamad and Anr., AIR 1954 S.C. 349 at pages 351 and 352 para 11 , as under: "Having examined the language of the relevant rules and the Judicial decisions bearing upon the subject we are of opinion that the provisions of the rules requiring the deposit of 25 per cent, of the purchase money immediately, on the person being declared as a purchaser and the payment of the balance within 15 days of the sale are mandatory and upon non-compliance with these provisions there is no sale at all. The rules do not contemplate that there can be any sale in favour of a purchaser without depositing 25 per cent of the purchase money in the first instance and the balance within 15 days. When there is no sale within the contemplation of these rules, there can be no question of material irregularity in the conduct of the sale. Non-payment of the price on the part of the defaulting purchaser renders the sale proceedings as a complete nullity. The very fact that the court is bound to re-sell the property in the event of a default shows that the previous proceedings for sale are completely wiped out as if they do not exist in the eye of law. We hold, therefore, that in the circumstances of the present case there was no sale and the purchasers acquired no rights at all." 7. The executing court will not confirm the sale if the decree-holder-auction-purchaser has not deposited the full amount of the purchase money within 15 days as required under Order 21 Rule 85, C.P.C. 8. The review petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.Review petition disposed of accordingly. *******