JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri S. Subba Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petition under Order 34 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to set aside the sale held on 22.12.2005 in EP No.17 of 2004 in OS No.19 of 1994 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Razole, and the petitioner contended that he is entitled to have the sale so set aside by depositing the decreetal amount, solatium and poundage so long as the sale has not been finally confirmed. 3. The petitioner is stated to have accordingly deposited Rs.2,75,000/- to the credit of the matter before the Executing Court as per the orders passed in SAMP No.2238 of 2011. 4. In U. Nilan v. Kannayyan, ( AIR 1999 SC 3750 ), the apex Court laid down that it is this philosophy, which is followed by the Court in allowing that person to redeem his properties by making the deposit under Order 34, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the person affected by adverse circumstances has to be protected from being a victim of exploitation. The apex Court, therefore, agreed with the view of this Court in Satyanarayana v. Ramamurthi (1960 (2) An.WR 430), wherein it was held that the existence of an application for setting aside the sale would operate as a bar in making the sale absolute and even during the pendency of the appeal, no finality attaches to the sale notwithstanding the confirmation of sale having been made in the meantime. Allowing the deposit of the amount under Order 34 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the apex Court also referred to other precedents on this aspect to the same effect. 5. In Yanamandala Rama Rao v. Ganta Ratnavathi, ( 2003 (4) ALD 594 ), a learned Judge of this Court following Kharaiti Lal v. Raminder Kaur, (2000 (2) ALD 86 (SC) = 2000 AIR SCW 934), held that deposit of the entire decreetal amount during the pendency of the appeal should result in the auction sale being set aside with reference to Order 34 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. 6. More directly on the question in detail was the decision reported in P.V.J.A. Prabhakar v. Lanka Venkata Ramana, ( 1987 (2) APLJ 450 ), wherein with reference to the precedents on the aspect, it was held that the substantial right conferred by Order 34 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not taken away so long as the judgment debtor pays all the requisite amounts when the confirmation of the sale is still in a fluid state. Such deposit during the pendency of the appeal was held covered by Order 34 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and so was the situation where an application under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not attain finality. 7. Therefore, the legal position is loud and clear that so long as an execution sale does not attain finality in the sense of being still the subject of adjudication of an application to set aside the sale before the executing Court or an appeal or second appeal against an adverse order in such an application, the right conferred on a judgment debtor by Order 34 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure to get over such sale by deposit of the entire decreetal amount or any other charges or expenses to be paid into the executing Court still subsists. 8. In the present case, the second appeal involves adjudication of the orders negativing an application to set aside the sale under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the executing and first appellate Courts and as the second appeal is still pending, the right to make a deposit as prayed for herein cannot be in doubt. The deposit of such an amount to a tune of Rs.2,75,000/-herein was made on 28.9.2011 as per the orders of this Court in SAMP No.2238 of 2011 and therefore, this petition has to be allowed and the sale has to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed without costs and the final decree is passed in terms of Order 34 Rules 5(1)(a) and (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.