ORDER B.S. PATIL, J.-Order dated 16.12.2006 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gadag, thereby accepting the highest bid of the auction purchaser-respondent No. 2 herein, is called in question in this writ petition. 2. Petitioners-Judgment Debtors are the owners of the property sold. Respondent No. 1 herein had filed a suit in O.S. No. 152/1997 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Gadag, seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale against the deceased husband of petitioner No. 1. Petitioners 2 to 4 are the sons of deceased Shivappa Hunasimarad. The suit for specific performance was partly decreed directing the deceased husband to pay Rs. 20,000/- with interest at 18% per annum. The prayer for specific performance of the contract was rejected. 3. Respondent No. 1-Decree Holder instituted execution proceedings in E.P. No. 60/2003 seeking recovery of the decreetal amount. In the said execution proceedings, the property in question was brought for sale. Respondent No. 2 herein offered highest bid at the rate of Rs. 81,500/-. The judgment-debtors-petitioners filed application under Order 21, Rules 89 and 90 of CPC. This application was resisted. As the application was presented before any order was passed with regard to the bid, further proceedings were deferred. However, the said application filed by the judgment-debtors was dismissed holding that he had failed to deposit 5% of the purchase money along with the application. While passing this order, the Executing Court made it clear that the highest bidder who was present before the Court had expressed his readiness to pay the entire auction amount in the Court was permitted to deposit the same. 4. The impugned order, therefore, has got two effects, the first being dismissal of the application under Order 21, Rules 89 and 90 of CPC filed by the judgment-debtor and the second being in the nature of permission granted to the auction purchaser to deposit the amount in the Court by way of acceptance of the bid. Petitioner is before this Court challenging this order in so far as it has the effect of granting permission to the purchaser to deposit the amount by accepting the bid. Subsequently, the Executing Court has confirmed the same on 17.02.2007. In fact, the original records summoned from the Executing Court disclose that after passing the impugned order, the matter was adjourned to 06.01.2007 for confirmation of sale. Subsequently, the Executing Court has confirmed the same on 17.02.2007. In fact, the original records summoned from the Executing Court disclose that after passing the impugned order, the matter was adjourned to 06.01.2007 for confirmation of sale. On 06.01.2007, the judgment-debtors filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking postponement of confirmation of sale and the matter was adjourned to 20.01.2007 for filing objections. On20.01.2007, the matter was adjourned to 17.02.2007 again for filing objections. On 17.02.2007, it was contended by the judgment-debtors that they had filed the present writ petition (W.P. No. 360/2007) before this Court challenging the order passed on 16.12.2006 and therefore confirmation of sale may be deferred. However, the Executing Court noticing the fact that no interim order had been granted by this Court, proceeded to dismiss the application and the sale came to be confirmed by order dated 02.03.2007. 5. The main contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that, although the highest bid amount of respondent No. 2 was accepted and the bidder was directed to deposit the amount vide order 16.12.2006, contrary to the mandatory requirement enumerated in Order 21, Rule 84(1) of CPC, the highest bidder did not deposit 25% of the amount of purchase money on the date of sale, but the same came to be deposited only on 18.12.2006. It is in this background, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Rosali V. vs. M/s. Nellai Small Match Producers Service Industrial Co-Operative Society Limited, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu and others, 1999(3) Kar. L.J. 141, Counsel submits that the requirement of depositing 25% of the purchase money with the officer conducting sale immediately after he is declared to be the purchaser being a mandatory requirement, non-compliance of the same renders the sale null and void as the Court had no power to extend such time. He further points out that where execution of sale is void ab initio for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions as to payment of purchase money within time specified, confirmation of such sale is also void. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 refuting the contentions urged by the petitioners, submits placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mrs. Anjalina D'souza vs. The Laxmi Vilas Bank Ltd. and others, AIR 1995 Kant. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 refuting the contentions urged by the petitioners, submits placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mrs. Anjalina D'souza vs. The Laxmi Vilas Bank Ltd. and others, AIR 1995 Kant. 30, that the petitioners ought to have filed an appeal against the order refusing to set aside the confirmation of sale, as the said order is expressly made appealable under Order 43, Rule 1(j) CPC. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for both parties, I find that it is not in dispute that the auction purchaser did not deposit 25% of the purchase money on the date when he was declared as the highest bidder and his bid was accepted with a direction to deposit the amount. Though the order accepting the bid was passed on 16.12.2006, the amount was deposited only on 18.12.2006. Order 21, Rule 84(1) CPC states 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. Further, Rule 85 states that full amount of purchase money payable shall be paid by the purchaser into Court before the Court closes on the 15th day from the sale of the property. It is thus clear that as per Order 21, Rule 84(1) CPC, the purchaser is required in law to make immediate payment of 25% of the purchase money. The Rule further makes it clear that on any default in making such payment/deposit, the property shall forthwith be re-sold. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on the judgment in Smt. Rosali's case, the Court has no power to extend this time. In this case, there is no extension of time granted by the Court. The auction purchaser did not deposit any amount on the date when he was declared highest bidder. He deposits the entire amount only after two days. Therefore, there is non-compliance of the mandatory requirement provided under Order 21, Rule 84(1) of CPC. Hence, the auction sale becomes void and the Executing Court ought to have re-sold the property. However, the subsequent developments that have taken place in this case need to be noticed here. He deposits the entire amount only after two days. Therefore, there is non-compliance of the mandatory requirement provided under Order 21, Rule 84(1) of CPC. Hence, the auction sale becomes void and the Executing Court ought to have re-sold the property. However, the subsequent developments that have taken place in this case need to be noticed here. 8. Before the sale was confirmed, the petitioners have rushed to this Court by filing this writ petition. Before this Court, petitioners have deposited on 23.11.2011, a sum of Rs. 80,000/-. Petitioners, through their Counsel, undertakes to pay interest on the amount deposited by the auction purchaser in order to ensure that the auction purchaser is not ruined. He further points out that in the light of the illegality in the procedure followed and the omission on the part of the purchaser to deposit 25% of the amount, the confirmation of sale also gets vitiated and therefore, the impugned order may be set aside directing the petitioners to pay interest on the amount deposited by respondent No. 2-auction purchaser. 9. In the light of the discussion made above and having regard to the judgment rendered by this Court referred to above, the auction itself becomes void. Therefore, the subsequent confirmation of sale also gets vitiated. In such case, question of driving the petitioners to avail alternative remedy of filing an appeal does not arise as the question is not of setting aside the sale, but is with regard to the action of the Executing Court in proceeding to confirm the sale in the absence of compliance of the mandatory requirement of law as provided under Order 21, Rule 84 of CPC. 10. As the judgment-debtor has come forward to pay interest on the purchase money, the deposit by respondent No. 2-auction purchaser and as I find that the purchaser's interest is also protected though he has committed default in not making payment as contemplated in law, I am of the view that ends of justice will be met if the judgment-debtors-petitioners are directed to pay interest at 12% per annum on the amount of Rs. 81,500/- deposited by the auction purchaser with effect from the date of deposit till the date of discharge of the entire amount. 11. Accordingly, the judgment-debtors are directed to pay/deposit the amount before the Executing Court within four weeks from today. 81,500/- deposited by the auction purchaser with effect from the date of deposit till the date of discharge of the entire amount. 11. Accordingly, the judgment-debtors are directed to pay/deposit the amount before the Executing Court within four weeks from today. It is made clear that the decree holder shall be entitled to receive the decreetal amount and the remaining amount shall be refunded to the judgment-debtors. It is further made clear that the amount of Rs. 81,500/- along with interest deposited by the auction purchaser-respondent No. 2 before the Trial Court shall be refunded to him. The judgment-debtors shall pay/deposit interest at 12% per annum on the said amount before the Executing Court, to which the auction purchaser will be entitled. The amount of interest as ordered above shall be deposited by the judgment-debtors before the Executing Court within four weeks from today. The impugned order and the consequential orders passed by the Executing Court confirming the sale are set aside. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.