JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have preferred these two separate revision petitions under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the same impugned order dated 3.8.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge No.4, Kota in Execution Case No.10/2003 whereby the learned Court below confirmed the auction sale dated 20.2.2006 and also ordered that sale-certificate under Order 21 Rule 94 Civil Procedure Code may be issued. As both the revision petitions have been preferred against the same impugned order with the consent of learned counsel for the parties the same were heard together and are being decided by this common order. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner-Rajasthan Financial Corporation initially filed writ petition against the impugned order but vide order dated 6.7.2012 with the consent of learned counsel for the parties the same was converted into and treated as civil revision petition. 2. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of these petitions may be stated as below:- (i) The petitioner-Rajasthan Financial Corporation (hereinafter to be referred as decree-holder) filed a civil misc. case No.19/96 under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act against the petitioner-Shri Narendra Kumar Goswami (hereinafter to be referred as judgment-debtor) and an exparte judgment and decree was passed on 18.12.1996 against him for Rs. 9,53,079/- with interest @ 16% per annum with effect from 16.3.1989. It was also ordered that the decree-holder is entitled to recover the said amount by attachment and sale of mortgaged property. (ii) The decree-holder filed Execution Application No.10/2003 in the Court below on 8.1.2003 for the recovery of decreetal amount against the judgment-debtor. (iii) The landed property mortgaged by the judgment-debtor with the decree-holder was attached by the Executing Court and a warrant of proclamation under Order 21 Rule 66 Civil Procedure Code was issued on 7.2.2006 and one Shri Brij Gopal Sharma was appointed as Special Sale Ameen to conduct the sale on 20.2.2006. Before that on 2.2.2006 "Ishtehar Neelam" in accordance with the provisions of Order 21 Rule 66 Civil Procedure Code was also issued by the Court below and in it terms and conditions of the sale were also incorporated. (iv) In compliance of the direction and order made by the Court below auction sale was conducted on 20.2.2006 and non-petitioner Surendra Sahni (hereinafter to be referred to as "auction purchaser") was declared to be the highest bidder as he gave bid for Rs. (iv) In compliance of the direction and order made by the Court below auction sale was conducted on 20.2.2006 and non-petitioner Surendra Sahni (hereinafter to be referred to as "auction purchaser") was declared to be the highest bidder as he gave bid for Rs. 17,86,000/- and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the sale he was directed to deposit 25% of the bid amount on the same day and remaining 75% of the amount within fifteen days. (v) The auction-purchaser did not deposit the required 25% amount on the same day but the amount was deposited on the next day i.e. 21.2.2006. (vi) On 22.2.2006 in the presence of the counsel for the decree-holder it was ordered by the Court below that fresh warrant of sale may be issued for 7.3.2006. (vii) On 2.3.2006 the auction-purchaser filed three different applications before the Court below and the decree-holder filed replies to the applications on 4.3.2006. (viii) Vide order dated 6.3.2006 the Court below allowed the auction-purchaser to deposit the remaining 75% of the bid amount and in compliance of that the remaining amount was deposited. It was also ordered that the auction-sale may not be held in compliance of order dated 22.2.2006. (ix) On 7.3.2006 the judgment-debtor filed an application before the Court below for stay of execution proceedings on the ground that the auction proceedings have not been properly conducted and the property can fetch much more value than the highest bid made by the auction-purchaser. It was also stated in the application that he has submitted an application for one time settlement before the decree-holder and the same is under consideration. It was prayed that auction-sale held on 20.2.2006 may be set aside. (x) The decree-holder also submitted an application on 8.3.2006 before the Court below with the averment that proposal of judgment-debtor regarding one time settlement of loan is under consideration and it was prayed that the execution proceedings may be stayed. (xi) On 24.7.2006 the decree-holder further submitted an application before the Court below for withdrawing the execution petition on the ground that proposal for one time settlement has been accepted and an amount of Rs. 5 lacs has already been paid by the judgment-debtor to the decree-holder. (xi) On 24.7.2006 the decree-holder further submitted an application before the Court below for withdrawing the execution petition on the ground that proposal for one time settlement has been accepted and an amount of Rs. 5 lacs has already been paid by the judgment-debtor to the decree-holder. On 1.8.2006 the decree-holder further filed an application stating therein that the judgment-debtor has submitted an application in the Head Office of the decree-holder for extension of time to deposit the balance amount and prayer was made to the Court below for staying the execution proceedings. (xii) Learned Court below considered the applications filed by the respective parties and vide impugned order dated 3.8.2006 auction sale dated 20.2.2006 was confirmed and it was also ordered that sale certificate may be issued in favour of the auction-purchaser. Feeling aggrieved, both decree-holder as well as judgment-debtor-Shri Narendra Kumar Goswami are before this Court by way of these civil revision petitions. 3. Assailing the impugned order learned counsel for the petitioners first of all submitted that it is an admitted fact that 25% of the bid amount was not deposited/paid to the sale-ameen on the same day immediately after the highest bid was accepted and according to auction-purchaser himself it was deposited on the next day i.e.21.2.2006 and, therefore, there was total non compliance of Rule 84 Order 21 Civil Procedure Code which requires that 25% of the amount shall be deposited immediately to the officer conducting the sale. It was further submitted that it is well settled that if in accordance with Rule 84 the required amount is not paid immediately the property in question becomes liable to be re-auctioned and no right is created in favour of the highest bidder and such sale cannot be confirmed. It was submitted that in the present case as the auction-purchaser failed to deposit 25% of the bid amount within the prescribed period, the Court below on 22.2.2006 rightly ordered for re-sale of the attached property and fixed 7.3.2006 as a date on which the auction was to be re-held. It was submitted that in the present case as the auction-purchaser failed to deposit 25% of the bid amount within the prescribed period, the Court below on 22.2.2006 rightly ordered for re-sale of the attached property and fixed 7.3.2006 as a date on which the auction was to be re-held. It was also submitted that it was never the case of the auction-purchaser before the Court below that he could not deposit the required amount immediately to the Sale Ameen for some reason and in absence of the same he cannot be allowed to say for the first time before this Court that for one or more reason he could not deposit the required amount to the Sale-Ameen or in the Court below.In support of their submissions learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the case of Rao Mahmood Ahmad Khan v. Ranbir Singh & ors. Reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC, 275. 4. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the auction-purchaser that as soon as his highest bid was accepted by the Sale-Ameen he offered to deposit/pay 25% of the bid amount to the Sale-Ameen but he refused to accept the same but directed him to deposit the amount in the Court below and in compliance of that challan was filed in the Court on 20.2.2006 itself and the required amount was deposited on the next day i.e.21.2.2006. It was further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the word "immediately" used in Rule 84 Order 21 Civil Procedure Code must be interpretted to mean within a reasonable period. It was also contended that although on 22.2.2006 an order for re-auction was passed by the Court below but it was not made clear for what reasons such order has been passed and in absence of that it cannot be said that the order was passed by the reason that the auction-purchaser failed to deposit 25% of the bid amount on 20.2.2006 to the Sale-Ameen. It was further submitted that when it was brought to the knowledge of the Court that the required amount has already been deposited in the Court on 21.2.2006 without any undue delay, the Court below rightly re-called the order dated 22.2.2006 vide order dated 6.3.2006 and proceeded to consider whether the sale dated 20.2.2006 can be confirmed in favour of the auction-purchaser. It was further submitted that a highest bidder cannot be deprived of his right of confirmation of sale only on technical ground like non-payment of some part of the bid amount within the prescribed time even if he otherwise shows that he always intended to fulfill his obligation.In support of his submissions learned counsel relied upon the case of Rosali V v. Taico Bank & ors. Reported in (2009) 17 SCC 690 . 5. In reply to the submissions made on behalf of the auction-purchaser it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the decision relied upon by the auction-purchaser is of no help to him as it is based on some special facts of that case which are not present in the present case. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the material available on file as well as relevant legal provisions and the case law. 7. It is not in dispute between the parties that as per order and direction made by the Court below the attached property was put for auction on 20.2.2006 and the auction-purchaser was the highest bidder and he was to deposit 25% of the bid amount immediately but he failed to do so and the amount was deposited in the Court on next day i.e.21.2.2006. 8. Rule 84 Order 21 provides that on every sale of immovable property the person declared to be the purchaser shall pay immediately after such declaration a deposit of 25% on the amount of his purchase money to the officer or other person conducting the sale, and in default of such deposit, the property shall forthwith be re-sold. 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manilal Mohanlal Shah & ors. v. Sardar Sayed Ahmed Sayed Mahmad & anr. Reported in AIR 1954 SC 349 has held that:- "The provisions of O.21 Rr.84,85 and 86 requiring the deposit of 25 per cent. of the purchase-money immemdiately, on the person being declared as a purchaser, such person not being a decree-holder, and the payment of the balance within 15 days of the sale, are mandatory and upon non-compliance with these provisions there is no sale at all. The rules do not contemplate that there can be any sale in favour of a stranger purchaser without depositing 25 per cent. The rules do not contemplate that there can be any sale in favour of a stranger purchaser without depositing 25 per cent. of the purchase-money in the first instance and the balance within 15 days. When there is no sale within the contemplation of these rules, there can be no question of material irregularity in the conduct of the sale. Non-payment of the price on the part of the defaulting purchaser renders the sale proceedings as a complete nullity. The very fact that the court is bound to re-sell the property (Rule86) in the event of a default shows that the previous proceedings for sale are completely wiped out as if they do not exist in the eye of law" 10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rao Mahmood Ahmed Khan v. Ranbir Singh & ors reported in 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 275 while considering Rules 285-D to Rule 285-G of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 which are similar to Rule 84 to 86 of Order 21 Civil Procedure Code has held that:- "Rule 285-D casts an obligation on the purchaser to deposit 25 per cent of the bid amount immediately and if he fails to do so the property shall be resold forthwith. The word 'immediately' connotes and implies that the deposit should be made without undue delay and within such convenient time as is reasonably requisite for doing the thing same day with all convenient speed excluding the possibility of rendering the other associated corresponding act and performance of duty nugatory. Here the other associated corresponding act and duty cast upon the officer/authority conducting the sale as envisaged by Rule 285-D is to put up the property for resale 'forthwith' on the failure of the declared purchaser to deposit 25 per cent of the bid amount. The word 'immediately' therefore, connotes proximity in time to comply and proximity in taking steps to resell on failure to comply with the requirement of deposit as first condition that is to take place within relatively short interval of time and without any other intervening recurrence. The meaning of the word 'forthwith' is synonymous with the word 'immediately' which means with all reasonable quickness and within a reasonably prompt time. The meaning of the word 'forthwith' is synonymous with the word 'immediately' which means with all reasonable quickness and within a reasonably prompt time. The intention of the legislature is that as soon as it becomes known that the purchaser has failed to deposit 25 per cent immediately after he is declared as purchaser, the property shall be put to resale forthwith without any loss of time or postponement of the date of resale. The provisions of Rules 285-D and 285-E, which are similar in terms of the corresponding provisions of Order 21 Rules 84, 85 and 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure, are mandatory and sale in non-compliance with Rules 285-D is a nullity." 11. On the other hand, in the case of Rosali V. v. Taico Bank & others AIR 2007 SC 998 (supra) in the facts and circumstances of the case it was held that:- "The term "immediately", occurring in Order 21 Rule 84 of the Code, therefore, must be construed having regard to the aforementioned principles. The term has two meanings. One, indicating the relation of cause and effect and the other, the absence of time between two events. In the former sense, it means proximately, without intervention of anything, as opposed to "mediately". In the latter sense, it means instantaneously. The term "immediately" is thus required to be construed as meaning with all reasonable speed, considering the circumstances of the case. In a given situation, the term "immediately" may mean "within reasonable time". Where an act is to be done within reasonable time, it must be done immemdiately." 12. It is thus, clear that the consistent view of Honble Apex Court is that Rule 84 casts an obligation upon the highest bidder to deposit 25 per cent of the bid amount immediately and if he fails to do so the property shall be resold forthwith. It is thus, clear that the consistent view of Honble Apex Court is that Rule 84 casts an obligation upon the highest bidder to deposit 25 per cent of the bid amount immediately and if he fails to do so the property shall be resold forthwith. The word "immediately" connotes and implies that the deposit should be made without undue delay and within such convenient time as is reasonably requisite for doing the thing same day with all convenient speed excluding the possibility of rendering the other associated corresponding act and performance of duty nugatory.Although, in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the auction-purchaser the delay of one day made in depositing the required amount of 25 per cent was not held to be fatal by Hon'ble Supreme Court but the facts and circumstances in which Hon'ble Court came to that conclusion are entirely different from the present case. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court it was found that the auction sale was held on 26.10.88 at 4.00 p.m. and by that time bank closed and on prayer being made to the Executing Court by the purchaser a specific direction was made to deposit the required amount by next day and the same was deposited on next day. In such circumstances it was held by Hon'ble Court that the conduct of the person is also relevant and if he intended to comply with the order of the Court but by reason of fortuitous circumstances he was not in a position to do so, the statute would not be held to be operating harshly in such a case. It is also pertinent to note that in this case the case of ""Manilal Mohanlal Shah & ors. It is also pertinent to note that in this case the case of ""Manilal Mohanlal Shah & ors. v. Sardar Sayed Ahmed Sayed Mahmad & anr., AIR 1954 SC 349 (supra) was also taken into consideration but it was not followed finding that it was decided in a different situation.But in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered view that the case of Rosali V. v. Taico Bank & ors., AIR 2007 SC 998 (supra) is of no help to the auction-purchaser as in the present case there is no material on record indicating that any effort was made by the auction-purchaser to pay/deposit 25% of the bid amount to the Sale-Ameen immediately on the spot or otherwise or to deposit the same in the Court on the same day. Similarly, there is no case of the auction-purchaser that for some reason he could not deposit/pay the said amount to the Sale-Ameen or to deposit the same in Court and order was obtained from the Court to deposit the same next day. It is also pertinent to note that in the case before Hon'ble Supreme Court the auction sale was concluded at 4.00 p.m. and by that time the bank closed and by that reason the auction purchaser was not able to deposit the amount in the bank and that is why a specific order was obtained from the Court whereas in the present case the auction sale commenced at 12 P.M. and it is not case of the auction-purchaser that by the time his bid was accepted by the Sale-Ameen the bank closed and he could not deposit the amount on the same day. From the facts of the case before Hon'ble Supreme Court it is not clear whether the auction purchaser was entitled to deposit the amount to the officer conducting the auction whereas in the present case Rule 84 clearly required that the amount shall be deposited with the officer conducting the sale and in the sale proclamation also such term was clearly incorporated. From the material available on record it is also clear that the Sale-Ameen directed the auctioner-purchaser to deposit 25% of the amount on the same day and remaining 75% within 15 days but despite such direction 25% of the amount was neither deposited nor paid. From the material available on record it is also clear that the Sale-Ameen directed the auctioner-purchaser to deposit 25% of the amount on the same day and remaining 75% within 15 days but despite such direction 25% of the amount was neither deposited nor paid. There is no material on record to substantiate the claim of the auction-purchaser that his offer to deposit/pay the required amount was not accepted by the sale-Ameen and instead he was directed by him to deposit the same in Court. It has not been explained by the auction-purchaser that if infact it was so, why the amount could not be deposited on the same day in the Court or a proper order was obtained from the Court to deposit it on the next day. Merely filing of challan in office cannot tantamount payment or deposit. Non-payment of the required amount on the part of the auction-purchaser rendered the sale proceedings complete nullity and no further proceedings including confirmation of the sale could have been ordered by the Court below and only option was to order re-sale as ordered vide order dated 22.2.2006. The Court below has committed grave illegality and perversity in passing the impugned order despite the fact that Rule 84 has not been complied with. 13. The result of all this discussion is that the impugned order dated 3.8.2006 is not legally sustainable and it is liable to be set aside on the ground that the auction purchaser failed to deposit/pay 25% of the bid amount within the prescribed period. Although, the impugned order was also assailed on some other grounds also but in the light of conclusion arrived at by this Court on the ground already considered, there is no need to consider and decide the other points.Consequently, both the revision petitions are allowed and the impugned order dated 3.8.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge No.4, Kota in Execution Case No.10/2003 is set aside. The Court below is directed to proceed further in accordance with law.Petitions allowed. *******