JUDGMENT J.N. Dwivedi, Member. - Both these appeals have been filed in the same case, and so, they are being disposed of together. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and gone through the file. 3. The facts of this case are that Udai Singh and others filed a suit for partition under Sec. 176 of the U.P. Act I of 1951 in respect of the joint Khata of the parties in village Abusarai, Pargana Mangalsi, district Faizabad. The preliminary decree in this case was passed on 18.9.72 and the shares of the parties were determined. Thereafter Udai Singh filed an application for preparation of the final decree. Originally, the total area of the land comprised in the joint Khata was 6 Bighas 9 Biswa 18 Biswani, but some land out of it was acquired by the Government for a bypass road, and so, the area was reduced to 4 Bighas 14 Biswa 8 Biswansi. It was less than 3.125 acre and so, the learned trial court passed an order on 7.2.75 that the land should be auctioned. The auction was held on 29.10.75, and Jagannath Singh was the highest bidder. His bid was accepted, and the auction was confirmed by the trial court on 3.1.1976. In the meantime, an objection was filed by Udai Singh against the auction, stating that the auction was not conducted according to rules, because the proclamation was issued for auction on a particular date, but it was adjourned, but no fresh proclamation was issued. It was also stated that other co-tenants of this Khata had no information, and so, the auction should be set aside. The trial court by its order dated 2.1.1976 rejected the objection of Udai Singh on the grounds that provisions of Civil Procedure Code were applicable, and Order XXI, Rule 90 clearly lays down that where any immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree, the decree-holder or the purchaser or any other person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of assets, may apply to the Court to set aside the sale on the ground of a material irregularity. This rule has been amended by Allahabad High Court's amendment, and it has been laid down that no application to set aside a sale under this rule shall be entertained unless the applicant deposits such amount not exceeding twelve and a half per cent of the sum realized by the sale or furnishes such security as the Court may, in its discretion, fix, except when the court, for reasons to be recorded, dispenses with the requirements of this clause. Since Udai Singh had not deposited twelve and a half per cent of the auction amount, nor any security was furnished, nor any application was submitted explaining the circumstances why he should be exempted from this deposit, his application was rejected. The sale was confirmed. Against this Udai Singh filed two appeals, one appeal was filed against the trial court's order dated 2.1.76 rejecting his objection. A second appeal was filed against the trial court's order dated 3.1.76 confirming the auction. The learned Addl. Commissioner held that the order dated 2.1.76 was perfectly justified inasmuch as it was necessary for the objector to deposit twelve and a half per cent. Reliance was placed on a ruling of the Hon'ble High Court reported in 1960 ALJ 578, in which it has been clearly mentioned that if the amount is not deposited within time, the objection cannot entertained. However, the appeal of Udai Singh against the order dated 3.1.76 was allowed on the grounds that the remaining three-fourth of the auction money was not deposited before the 15th day as required under Order XXI, Rule 85 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is clear that in this case, the three-fourth amount had been deposited on 14.11.75, whereas the 15th day was 13.11.75. Accordingly, the learned Addl. Commissioner has held that the order of the trial court dated 3.1.76 was not proper, and it had no power to confirm the same, and so, the appeal of Udai Singh had been allowed on this ground, and it has been ordered that fresh proceedings for auction should be taken. Appeal No. 37 has been filed by Jagannath Singh against this order. 4. Second Appeal No. 73 has been filed by Udai Singh against the order of Addl. Commissioner dated 23.7.80 in Appeal No.409. Appeal No. 37 has been filed by Jagannath Singh against this order. 4. Second Appeal No. 73 has been filed by Udai Singh against the order of Addl. Commissioner dated 23.7.80 in Appeal No.409. This appeal was directed against the order of the trial court dated 7.2.75, by which he had directed that the suit land should be auctioned. This appeal was dismissed by the Addl. Commissioner. 5. Thus, it is clear that the order passed in appeal filed by Udai Singh, rejecting his objection has become final, and no appeal has been filed by him against that order. As regards his appeal against the order of the Addl. Commissioner in Appeal No. 409 against the order of the trial court dated 7.2.75, directing that the property be auctioned, I find that there is no irregularity. Since some land has been taken out and had been acquired by the State Government, the area reduced, and so, the trial court was perfectly justified in ordering auction of the property. 6. As regards the appeal of Jagannath Singh. I find that one-fourth amount was deposited by him in the Government treasury on 29.10.1975. On 13.11.1975 he submitted an application that he was co-sharer to the extent of 1/36th in the property, and so, his share in the auction money should be reduced, and he should be directed to deposit the remaining amount, i.e., Rs. 15,870.85. On this application, the Presiding Officer passed an order that he should deposit Rs. 15,870.85. Accordingly, the challan was passed, which has been signed by the presiding Officer on 13.11.75 itself, but actually the amount has been deposited on 14.11.1975. Jagannath Singh submitted an application on 15.11.75 those he had deposited the entire amount, and, accordingly, the sale was confirmed after rejecting of all the objections. 7. Now, the question to be seen is whether the auction could have been confirmed or not, and whether Order XXI, Rule 85 of the Civil Procedure Code permits any delay, although from a reading of Order XXI, Rule 85 it is clear that full amount of purchase money shall be paid by the purchaser in the court before the court closed on the 15th day from the date of sale of the property. In this connection, the learned counsel for Jagannath Singh has shown to me several rulings on this point. In this connection, the learned counsel for Jagannath Singh has shown to me several rulings on this point. It has been held in AIR 1958 A.P. 472 , that if the challan applied for depositing the amount was in time, but there was some delay due to the treasury or the court, it should be deemed to be within time, even if the deposit has been made on a subsequent date. Similar view has been expressed in AIR 1966 Patna 292, in which it was held that challan tendered on the last date but deposit not being made on the last date because challan was not received by the accounts office in the court in time, and the deposit was made the next day, it was considered that it was sufficient compliance of Order XXI Rule 85 of the Civil Procedure Code. In AIR 1963 A.P. 423 , it has been held that a person can deposit the amount on the subsequent date, depending upon the circumstances of the case, and if it is found that he was not at fault, the deposit made subsequently can also be entertained. Similar view had been expressed in AIR 1934 Alld. 817, that in the record offers to pay the balance within 15 days, but the money is deposited through the treasury the next day it is sufficient compliance of Order XXI, Rule 85 C.P.C. The case is fully governed by these rulings. The challan was passed on the 15th day. It is clear that an application was submitted by Jagannath Singh that his share out of the auction money should be deposited, and he should be directed to deposit the remaining account which was accepted by the Court on the very day and the challan was also passed. It is common knowledge that deposits are made in the State Bank only before 2.00 p.m. and so, the amount was deposited on 14.11.75, and the court was informed accordingly on the subsequent day, and it appears that the court was fully satisfied that Jagannath Singh was not at fault, and that is why, the auction was confirmed. At that time, Udai Singh did not raise any objection against the acceptance of the amount. Thus, the view taken by the learned Addl. At that time, Udai Singh did not raise any objection against the acceptance of the amount. Thus, the view taken by the learned Addl. Commissioner to the effect that the remaining amount not having been deposited on the 15th day, vitiated the entire proceedings, and there should be fresh auction is not supported by law. The learned Addl. Commissioner has taken a wrong view, and his order cannot be sustained. 8. The result is that appeal No. 73 filed by Udai Singh fails, and Appeal No. 37 filed by Jagannath Singh is allowed. the order of the learned Addl. Commissioner is modified to that extent, and the order of the trial court confirming the auction is upheld. 9. This order will govern both the Appeals Nos. 87 and 73 (z) of 1980-81/Faizabad.