Judgment G.B. Shah, J.—Heard the learned Advocate Mr. Sachin D. Vasavada for the petitioner-wife. By way of the present petition, the petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 13.10.2012 passed below Exh. 21 in Execution Petition No. 14/2012 by the District Court, Nadiad. The petitioner herein is a legally wedded wife of Respondent No. 3-Kamlesh Patel. The marriage between the petitioner and Respondent No. 3 was solemnized on 6.3.1997. After the marriage, the petitioner and Respondent No. 3 were living happily as husband and wife. After the marriage, the petitioner went to USA with her husband. Petitioner is a Green Card holder of USA Government. In the year 2000, the petitioner planned to go to Singapore they came to India and for that purpose, under the guise of visa of Singapore, took away the passport and green card of the petitioner wife and run away to USA keeping the wife in dark and betrayed her. The petitioner-wife, on coming to know about this conduct of the husband, immediately filed application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights and also to return all the valuable documents namely, passport and Green Card and also to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- so as to nurture herself and her dependent parents. That on this, the Respondent No. 3-husband preferred appeal. The said appeal was dismissed and the said dismissal order was confirmed by this court. Moreover, Respondent No. 3 has also filed divorce application in the Court of USA and since the passport and Green Card of the petitioner were with the Respondent No. 3-husband, the petitioner could not fly to USA and could not attend the Court to object the divorce application and, therefore, the USA Court passed order allowing divorce. It is the case of the petitioner-wife that the said order is obtained fraudulently and it has no legal sanctity in the eye of law and in Second Appeal No. 64/2006, this Court has also considered the divorce decree as null and void. 2. As Respondent No. 3-husband neither restitute the conjugal rights of the petitioner nor returned her passport and green card nor paid any maintenance of her livelihood, she had to file execution petition for her maintenance. Initially Respondent No. 3, through his power of attorney, attended the proceedings and used to pay maintenance. 2. As Respondent No. 3-husband neither restitute the conjugal rights of the petitioner nor returned her passport and green card nor paid any maintenance of her livelihood, she had to file execution petition for her maintenance. Initially Respondent No. 3, through his power of attorney, attended the proceedings and used to pay maintenance. Thereafter, from 2012 Respondent No. 3 has stopped appearing in the Court of law in the execution proceedings and hence in the execution proceedings, the Court had to proceed with public auction of the properties of the husband and accordingly advertisement was given in daily newspaper and auction was held and Respondent No. 2 was the highest bidder and accordingly the said sale was concluded in favour of Respondent No. 2 but thereafter as the auction was completed in the evening hours it was difficult for the Respondent No. 2 to manage demand draft to be deposited in the office of the Registrar due to closure of working hours of the bank and hence Respondent No. 2 has filed application for extension of time and the Incharge Judge has extended time for three days for depositing first instalment to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Thereafter when Respondent No. 2 went to deposit the amount, the Regular Judge has rejected the request of Respondent No. 2 under the pretext of non-compliance of Order 21 Rule 84 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Hence the said order has been challenged by the petitioner in this petition. 3. I have considered the documents annexed by the petitioner along with the petition. It is pertinent to note that Respondent No. 3-husband of the petitioner has not deposited the amount of maintenance after 2012 and the said amount is required to be recovered for which the auction has been held as referred in the petition. 3.1 Referring to the provisions of Sub-rule (I) of Rule 84 of Order 21, it appears that on every sale of immoveable property, the person declared to be the purchaser shall pay immediately after such declaration a deposit of 25% and in default of such deposit, the property shall forthwith be resold, meaning thereby, if the person concerned is not deposited 25% of the total consideration, then during the said relevant time, the procedure for reselling the property be carried out immediately so that no republication of public notice for auction of the same be carried out. In the case on hand, in spite of the fact that 25% amount has not been deposited on the same date but ultimately it is the fact that the purchaser has not declined to deposit the said amount but within three days as granted by the court, he has shown his willingness to deposit 25% of the amount meaning thereby he wants to proceed further with the sale consideration amount which has been fixed in the auction. Under the circumstances, in my view, the Court should have liberally construed the said provisions of Order 21 Rule 84. Anyhow, without entering into the merits of the case and as such right now the maintenance amount is to be recovered from the amount of auction to be held again, this petition is required to be allowed. This petition is accordingly partly allowed. The impugned orders dated 20.9.2012 and 13.10.2012 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Court, Nadiad below Exh. 21 and below Exh.1 respectively in Execution Petition No. 14/12 are hereby set aside. The learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Court, Nadiad before whom the Execution Petition No. 14/2012 is pending, is hereby directed to revive the order dated 3.10.2012 or pass the fresh order and reissue the Public Notice in line of Exh. 19 initially for the same property to recover the maintenance amount and the expenses to be incurred, after fresh publication through public notice which shall be borne by the petitioner, the same is directed to be deposited at the initial stage by the petitioner and the same is also ordered to be repaid to the petitioner as and when the said sale consideration will be deposited in the Court concerned by holding re-auction as directed hereinabove. Direct service is permitted.