ORDER Chidananda Ullal, J.—The Petitioner in the instant writ petition had challenged the order dated 13.2.1998 in case No. 96:97-98 passed by the Respondent No. 1-Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, copy produced at Annexure-C to writ petition. 2. The Petitioner herein is represented by the learned Counsel, Sri S.R. Raviprakash whereas the contesting Respondent No. 5 is represented by the learned Counsel, Sri M.V. Seshadri. The Respondents No. 1 to 3 are represented by the learned High Court Government Pleader, Sri Chikkavenkatappa. 3. The Petitioner herein was an Auction purchaser of a residential house property of 4062 Sq. Ft. in S. No. 56/49 situated within Madikeri Town Municipality. That, the same was put to public auction on 18.9.1992 as the deceased husband of the Respondent No. 5 was a defaulter in the matter of payment of the Co-operative dues to the Respondent No. 4-Society. That, the said public auction had taken place on 18.9.1992 and the Petitioner herein had purchased the property for Rs. 1,07,000.00. he being the highest bidder. He had deposited 15% of the bid price of Rs. 16,500.00 on 18.9.1992 before the Respondent No. 3-Recovery Officer and he had paid the balance of Rs. 90,500.00 on 24.9.1992 alongwith the stamp paper for execution of the sale certificate. That, neither the contesting Respondent No. 5 nor the other legal representatives of the deceased Bopaiah had ever challenged the same. That, subsequently the Respondent No. 2-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies had set aside the said sale held on 18.9.1992 by his order dated 5.11.1992. Having been aggrieved thereto, the Petitioner herein had filed a revision petition in No. CMW 76 CP 92 on file of the Secretary, Department of Co-operation, Government of Karnataka and by his order dated 22.5.1996, the said Authority had dismissed the revision petition of the Petitioner by upholding the above order passed by the Respondent No. 2. 4. That, thereafter, the Petitioner herein had filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 18722 of 1996 before this Court praying to quash the above order dated 5.11.1992 passed by the Respondent No. 2 and also to quash the order dated 22.5.1996 passed by the Government of Karnataka. That, thereafter, the matter was remitted to the Respondent No. 2-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies for passing appropriate order in the matter of confirmation of the sale. That, thereafter, the matter was remitted to the Respondent No. 2-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies for passing appropriate order in the matter of confirmation of the sale. That, after the remand the matter by this Court, the Respondent No. 2 had issued a sale certificate in favor of the Petitioner in the stamp paper dated 25.10.1997, copy as at Annexure-B to writ petition. 5. That, the contesting Respondent No. 5 thereafter had preferred an appeal before the Respondent No. 1-Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies to challenge the original order dated 20.10.1997 passed by the Respondent No. 2, copy as at Annexure-A to writ petition, in passing whereof, the said Co-operative Authority confirmed the auction sale held by the Respondent No. 3-Recovery Officer on 18.9.1992. The Respondent No. 1-Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies had allowed the appeal setting aside the above order of the Respondent No. 2-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies by his order dated 13.2.1998, copy at Annexure-C to writ petition. The Petitioner herein had challenged the said order, copy as at Annexure-C to writ petition, before this Court. 6. Among other grounds, the Petitioner herein had contended that as per the provision of Rule 38(4)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 (herein after referred to as 'Rules') if any person is interested in the property which was sold in the execution, wants to set aside the sale shall deposit money equivalent to 5% of the sale price and also in addition to this shall deposit the arrears of due to the decree holder and that the deposit if such money is the condition precedent as per the said Rules. Therefore, according to the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 1-Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies would not have entertained the very appeal. 7. I heard the learned Counsel for the contending parties. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the contesting Respondent No. 5 had argued the respective side of their case. The contesting Respondent No. 5 had also filed a detailed objection statement as against the averments in the writ petition. Before proceedings further, I feel it appropriate to quote the operative portion of the order dated 20.10.1997 passed by the Respondent No. 2-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, copy as at Annexure-A to writ petition, whereby he had confirmed the auction sale held by the Respondent No. 2. Before proceedings further, I feel it appropriate to quote the operative portion of the order dated 20.10.1997 passed by the Respondent No. 2-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, copy as at Annexure-A to writ petition, whereby he had confirmed the auction sale held by the Respondent No. 2. The same reads as hereunder; KANNADA 8. From the above, it is clear that the Respondent No. 2 had confirmed the sale of the subject property in the name of the Petitioner. Further more, I have to point out here that in pursuance of the above order, the Respondent No. 2 had also issued a sale certificate in favour of the Petitioner in the stamp paper, copy as at Annexure-B to writ petition. 9. It is interesting to observe here further that the sale certificate, copy as at Annexure-B to writ petition, came to be issued in Form No. 10 as contemplated under Sub-rule (17) of Rule 38 of the Rules and as such is a document of title that came to be issued by the Respondent No. 2 in the name of the Petitioner herein in respect of the subject property. 10. Both the Counsel had also cited various authorities before me, they are as follows: 11. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner had cited the following decisions: 1. 1986(2) KLJ 479 2. Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas Thakur Vs. Ratilal Motilal Patel, AIR 1968 SC 372 3. 1970 (2) M Ys LJ 344 4. Collector of Customs and Excise, Cochin and Others Vs. A.S. Bava, AIR 1968 SC 13 5. 1984 (1) KLC SN 38 6. Dr (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta Vs. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.) and Others, AIR 1987 SC 2186 7. L. Hirday Narain Vs. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly, AIR 1971 SC 33 8. Maruthi Vs. State of Karnataka, ILR (1993) KAR 1158 9. Bangaramma Vs. Nanjamma, ILR (1993) KAR 230 10. S.V. Venkataswamy Vs. Assistant Commissioner, ILR (1994) KAR 3101 12. The learned Counsel for the contesting Respondent No. 5 had cited the following decisions: 1. 1978 (2) KLJ 13 2. 1989 (1) KLJ 125 3. 1989 (1) KLJ 278 4. Smt. Lalithamma and Another Vs. Corporation of the City of Bangalore, AIR 2000 Kant 41 5. ILR 1990 (2) Kar 1660 6. 1989 (1) KLJ 134 13. The learned Counsel for the contesting Respondent No. 5 had cited the following decisions: 1. 1978 (2) KLJ 13 2. 1989 (1) KLJ 125 3. 1989 (1) KLJ 278 4. Smt. Lalithamma and Another Vs. Corporation of the City of Bangalore, AIR 2000 Kant 41 5. ILR 1990 (2) Kar 1660 6. 1989 (1) KLJ 134 13. I do not think it is necessary for me to advert to all the above decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the contending parties before me, for in my considered view, the instant writ petition can be disposed of by me on the short point of maintainability of the very appeal preferred by the contesting Respondent No. 5 before the Respondent No. 1-Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Now I consider the same hereunder. 14. In the writ petition, the first ground set out at para (6) of the writ petition reads as follows: As per the provisions of Rule 38(4)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules of 1960 if any person is interested in the property which was sold in the execution, wants to set aside the said sale shall deposit money equivalent to 5% of the sale price and also in addition to this shall deposit the arrears of due to the decree holder. The deposit of such money is the condition precedent as per the said rules. The Respondent No. 5 who has challenged the confirmation of the sale in favour of the Petitioner did not make any such deposit as per the above said Rule 38(4)(a) and (i) and (ii) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules of 1960. Therefore the Respondent No. 5 does not have the locus standi to challenge the confirmation of the sale in favour of the Petitioner. Hence the order dated 13.2.1998 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies of Kodagu district at Madikei which is produced herewith as Annexure-C is against the law. Apart from that the said appeal filed by the Respondent No. 5 ought to have been dismissed in limine for reason that the Respondent No. 5 did not deposit the money as per the above said provisions of Rule 38(4)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules of 1960. 15. Apart from that the said appeal filed by the Respondent No. 5 ought to have been dismissed in limine for reason that the Respondent No. 5 did not deposit the money as per the above said provisions of Rule 38(4)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules of 1960. 15. On a simple reading of the detailed objection statement filed by the contesting Respondent No. 5, it is clear that she had not chosen to advert to the said ground inasmuch as she has conceded the said contention of the Petitioner that in filing the appeal in question to challenge the order passed by the Respondent No. 2 before the Respondent No. 1, she had not deposited 5% of the sale price and also the arrears due to the decree holder as contemplated under Rule 38(4)(a)(i) and (ii) of Rules. As argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner at the outset, it was a condition precedent to deposit 5% of the sale price and further to deposit arrears due to the decree holder by the Petitioner to challenge the confirmation order passed by the Respondent No. 2 confirming the sale effected by the Respondent No. 3. The said legal position had not been disputed by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 5, Sri Seshadri either. If that is so, in my considered view, the Respondent No. 1 would not have entertained the very appeal preferred by the contesting Respondent No. 5 before him and on that ground alone, the appeal preferred by the Respondent No. 5 would have been dismissed summarily. Admittedly, the Respondent No. 1 did not do that and instead he had entertained the appeal on merit and passed the order impugned, copy as at Annexure-C to writ petition. 16. In that view of the matter, I feel that the impugned order passed by the Respondent No. 1-Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, copy as at Annexure-C to writ petition is liable to be quashed on that short ground alone and accordingly the same is hereby quashed, in the process the instant writ petition stands allowed, but with cost. That cost I assess at Rs. That cost I assess at Rs. 10,000.00 in the facts and circumstances of the case that, despite the successful bid in the year 1992 and the Petitioner was issued with sale certificate by the Respondent No. 2 on 25.10.1997, he had been kept out of possession of the subject property. Let that cost be paid by the Respondent No. 5 to the Petitioner.