KUMAR RAJARATNAM, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the auction purchaser. The first respondent is the decree-holder. The second respondent is the judgment-debtor. ( 2 ) THE petitioner-auction purchaser has filed this revision petition aggrieved by the order dated 30-11-1995 passed by the Court of principal Munsiff, Mangalore, in Misc. No. 89 of 1989 in Execution Case No. 98 of 1988. ( 3 ) THE facts very briefly are: The second respondent had borrowed some money from the bank and she was unable to repay the same. The first respondent-Bank filed a suit and obtained a decree in S. C. No. 122 of 1981. The bank filed an Execution Petition No. 98 of 1988 and brought for sale the property alleged to have been held by the second respondent. Auction was held on 28-11-1989. The petitioner made his bid at the said auction. He was declared as the successful bidder. On the same day, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 7,650/- being one-fourth of the sale amount. On enquiry, the auction purchaser found that on the date of sale, the second respondent had no subsisting right, title or interest in the property and the first respondent could not have brought for sale the said property. Therefore, he filed an application under Order 21, Rule 91 of the CPC for refund of the said sale amount. ( 4 ) IN the meanwhile, one Abdulla filed a petition in Miscellaneous Case No. 3 of 1990 under Order 21, Rule 58 of the CPC stating that the property which was brought for sale in fact belong to the said Abdulla and there was no saleable interest to the judgment-debtor and sought for raising of attachment. ( 5 ) LEARNED Munsiff allowed the application and held that the order of attachment by the bank was dated 13-09-1988 even before the date of attachment the said Abdulla had purchased the said property by the sale deed dated 23-5-1987. ( 6 ) IN that view of the matter the learned Munsiff in effect held that the judgment-debtor the second respondent herein, had no saleable interest and allowed Misc. Case No. 3 of 1990 in favour of Mr. Abdulla. Having held so the learned Judge did not feel inclined to refund the amount to the auction purchaser. ( 6 ) IN that view of the matter the learned Munsiff in effect held that the judgment-debtor the second respondent herein, had no saleable interest and allowed Misc. Case No. 3 of 1990 in favour of Mr. Abdulla. Having held so the learned Judge did not feel inclined to refund the amount to the auction purchaser. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the bank strenuously submitted that the auction purchaser only paid one-fourth of the purchase amount and the balance amount was not paid and therefore, the amount should be forfeited and he is not entitled for refund. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the auction-purchaser submitted that an application was made under Order 21, Rule 91 of the CPC. Order 21, Rule 91 deals with an application to set aside the sale on the ground that judgment-debtor has no saleable interest in the property. It was further submitted that the sale was held on 29-11-1989 and the application under Order 21, Rule 91 of the CPC was made on 14-12-1989 within fifteen days. ( 9 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that as required under Order 21, Rule 85 of the CPC, the balance payment of the purchase money shall be paid by the auction purchaser within fifteen days from the date of sale of the property. He also submitted that the converse equally applies in a situation where the judgment-debtor had no saleable interest and by analogy he submitted that the application for refund of the amount is very much within time. ( 10 ) ORDER 21, Rule 93 of the CPC clarifies the position. Order 21, Rule 93 reads as follows: "order 21, Rule 93. Return of purchase-money in certain cases. Where a sale of immovable property is set aside under rule 92, the purchaser shall be entitled to an order for repayment of his purchase-money, with or without interest as the Court, against any person to whom it has been paid". Order 21, Rule 93 gives a right to the auction purchaser for refund of money if the sale is set aside. Unfortunately none of the parties brought to the notice of the Court the power under Order 21, Rule 93 to refund the purchase money where the judgment-debtor had no saleable title. Order 21, Rule 93 gives a right to the auction purchaser for refund of money if the sale is set aside. Unfortunately none of the parties brought to the notice of the Court the power under Order 21, Rule 93 to refund the purchase money where the judgment-debtor had no saleable title. ( 11 ) IN view of the power of the Court under Order 21, Rule 93, I feel that the ends of justice will be met if the Trial Court is directed to refund the amount paid by the auction purchaser. This order is made in view of the fact that the money is still in deposit in Court. The civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .