JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - JudgmentTdebtor is the petitioner. The decree- holder, who is also the auction-purchaser, filed Execution Case No. 119 of 1987 for realisation of decretal dues of Rs. 927/- and cost. On 3.8.1989, Sale Proclamation was issued for realisation of sum of Rs. 1333.00 and it was indicated that the auction of the property shall take place on 28.9.1989 at 12 P.M. in the Court of the Munsif, Jajpur. On 6.8.1989, the said sale proclamation was served on the judgment-debtor. Before the first date of auction, the judgment-debtor filed an application for adjournment of the sale. As a matter of fact, the judgment-debtor paid a total sum of Rs. 900/- on three different dates, that is to say, on 23.9.1989, 12.12.1989 and 20.2.1990, and the date of auction was adjourned from day to day. Subsequently, on 16.3,1990, the judgment-debtor filed fresh application seeking for time to make payment and the matter was adjourned to 30.3.1990 for sale. On the said date, the judgment-debtor was absent, but the sale did not take place due to want of time of the Court and it was thereafter adjourned on several occasions. Ultimatley, the property was sold on 4.5.1990 and the decree-holder himself being the highest bidder, the sale was knocked down in his favour at the highest bid of Rs. 1271/-. Subsequently, on the basis of the auction-purchase, the decretal amount was adjusted towards the bid amount. 2. Before the sale was confirmed, an application wasifile.d by the judgment-debtor apparently under Order 21, Rule 89, CPC forgetting aside the sale. The judgment-debtor made a deposit of Rs, 1,401/-. Such petition was rejected by order dated 5.7.1990 on. the ground that the deposit contemplated under Order 21, Rule 89, CPC having not been made within thirty days, the application could not be entertained, though such application had been made within sixty days from the date of the auction sale. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition under Order 21, Rule 90, CPC on 20.7.1990 alongwith an application for condonation of delay. The said petition was rejected by the executing Court on 10.8.1990. Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 1991 filed against the said order having been dismissed on 28.7.1993, the present Civil Revision has been filed. 3. One of the grounds for rejecting the application under Order 21, Rule 90, CPC was limitation in filing such application. The said petition was rejected by the executing Court on 10.8.1990. Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 1991 filed against the said order having been dismissed on 28.7.1993, the present Civil Revision has been filed. 3. One of the grounds for rejecting the application under Order 21, Rule 90, CPC was limitation in filing such application. TJiere is no dispute that Article 127 of the Limitation Act is applicable to such application and in the present case, the application had been filed beyond sixty days. However, on perusal of the order-sheet, it is apparent that before filing the application under Order 21, Rule 90, the petitioner was pursuing an application filed under Order 21, Rule 89, CPC after having made the statutry deposit required under Order 21, Rule 89. It is, of course, true that the said application was ultimately rejected on the ground that the statutory deposit had not been made within the stiulated period of thirty days, but it cannot be said that the petitioner in pursuing the said remedy was not pursuing the matter bonafide. It is, therefore, clear, applying the provisions contained in Sec. 5 as well as Sec. 14 of the Limitation Act that there was sufficient cause for not filing the application under Order 21, Rule 90, CPC within the stipulated period. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though on the application of the present petitioner, the sale was adjourned till 30.3.1990, thereafter the sale did not take place on the date fixed, but took place on 4.5.1990 beyond thirty days. It is, therefore, contended that fresh proclamation as contemplated in Order 21, Rule 69, CPC should have been issued. The appellate Court had negatived such contention on the ground that the earlier adjournments were specifically made on the basis of application of the judgment-debtor and it must be taken that the judgment-debtor had waived the requirement of fresh proclamation being issued. On going thrugh the order sheet, 1 find that between 30.3.1990, the date specifically fixed for sale on the basis of the application of the judgment-debtor, and 4.5.1990, the date on which the auction took place, there had been several adjournments. On going thrugh the order sheet, 1 find that between 30.3.1990, the date specifically fixed for sale on the basis of the application of the judgment-debtor, and 4.5.1990, the date on which the auction took place, there had been several adjournments. Order 21, Rule 69, Sub-rule (2) prescribes as follows : "(2) Where a sale is adjourned under Sub-rule (2) for a longer period than thirty days a fresh proclamation under Rule 67 shall be made unless the judgment-debtor consents to waive it." The expression "where a sale is adjourned.... for a longer period than thirty days" as containded in Sub-rule (2) means, where the period of adjournment is as such more than thirty days. In other words, if the sale is adjourned for a period less than thirty days on several occasions, but the total period of such adjournment is more than thirty days, Order 21, Rule 69, Sub-rule (2) would not be attracted. In the present case, as already pointed out, between the dates 30.3.1990 and 4.5.1990, there had been several other adjournments for period less than thirty days. As such there was no requirement of fresh proclamation." 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that in the present case, the judgment-debtor had already paid a sum of Rs. 900/- and subsequently while filing the application under Order 21, Rule 89, CPC further amount of Rs. 1401/- had been paid. In such back-ground, the sale should be quashed by invoking the inherent power of the Court particularly when the decree-holder himself was the auction- purchaser. In support of such contention that the Court can exercise power u/s 151, CPC the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited several decisions, such as AIR 1966 Mad 84 (A.P.Ismail Rowther v. Mynoon Bivi and others) : AIR 1957 Raj 154 (Mubarak Begam and Anr. v. Sushil Kumar and others) and Nani Gopal Paul Vs. T. Prasad Singh and others. When specific provisions are there under Order 21, Rule 89 and Order 21, Rule 90, CPC for the situations contemplated under those two provisions, it would not be permissible to invoke the inherent power u/s 151, CPC and merely because certai amount had been paid and it is claimed that valuable property worth about Rs. 15,000/- has been sold for a paltry sum of Rs. 15,000/- has been sold for a paltry sum of Rs. 1300/- and odd and so the auction shouldbe set aside u/s 151, CPC is not acceptable. 6. Though the petitioner cannot succeed on the point raised, the auction sale has to be set aside on another ground. In the original sale proclamation, it was fixed that the sale shall take place on 28.9.1989 at 12 A.M. The date of sale was being adjourned thereafter on several dates. However, a perusal of the order-sheet indicates that the executing Court had not fixed the time for holding such sale. Order 21, Rule 69 empowers the Court in its discretion to adjourn any sale to a specified date and hour. In the present case, though the sale was being adjourned to a specific date, the time of sale had not been indicated in any of the orders particularly after 16.3.1990. As observed by this Court in the decision reported in ILR 1961 Cut 61 (Krushna Mohan Mohanti v. Gobinda Chandra Sahu), not specifying the hour of sale is a material irregularity likely to vitiate the sale. In the present case, the auction amount is even below the upset price fixed by the Court. Since the time of sale was not fixed, it can be well assumed that the possible bidders had been misled and had not attended the auction. In the back-ground of the present case, particularly keeping in view the fact that the decree- holder himself was the auction-purchaser, I am of the view that non- fixation of the time of sale, as required under Order 21, Rule 69(1), CPC is a material irregularily which has ultimately affected the sale causing prejudice to the judgment-debtor. Accordingly, the auction is liable to be set aside. 7. From the record it appears that apart from paying a sum of Rs. 900/- on three different instalments, the judgment-debtor had paid a sum of Rs. 1401/- along with the application under Order 21, Rule 89, CPC. The appellate Court has observed that the judgment-debtor had not complied with the requirement as contemplated in Orissa Amendment to Order 21, Rule 90 to the effect that the applicant is required to make a deposit not exceeding twelve and half per cent of the sum realised by the sale. However, as observed by this Court in the decision reported in Kamala Kanta Mohapatra and Another Vs. However, as observed by this Court in the decision reported in Kamala Kanta Mohapatra and Another Vs. Debarchan Seth and Another such deposit need not be made along with the petition and can be made before the petition is actually taken up for consideration. In the present case, the amount lying in deposit in the executing Court was much in excess of the twelve and half per cent required to be deposited. It is not that the amount of Rs. 1401/- deposited by the judgment-debtor alongwith the application under Order 21, Rule 89, CPC not forfeited by dismissal of the petition under Order 21, Rule 89. The aforesaid amount which was admittedly lying in deposit should have been considered as sufficient compliance with the requirement of the deposit of twelve and half per cent. 8. Now that the auction sale is being set aside, the question arises as to what order should be passed in the execution case itself relating to payment of the amount to the decree-holder. The^ amount decreed along with future interest, if any, may be calculated and if such amount exceeds sum of Rs. 2,301/- the judgment-debtor shall be required to pay the balance amount within a period of one month from the date of such calculation. If, however, such amount does not exceed the sum of Rs. 2,301/- the entire amount of Rs. 2,301/- which includes sum of Rs. 900/- paid earlier and Rs. 1401/- deposited alongwith the application under Order 21, Rule 89, shall be paid to the decree-holder and there is no necessity of refunding any amount to the judgment-debtor. 9. The Civil Revision is accordingly allowed subject to the aforesaid direction. There will be no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed