ORDER : Narsing Rao Nandikonda, J. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner (Judgment Debtors) under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short C.P.C) assailing the order dated 05.09.2012 in E.A.No.81 of 2012 in E.P.No.41 of 2009 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, District Medak, (for short, ‘the impugned order’) 2. Vide the impugned order, the petition filed by the respondent No.1/auction purchaser under Section 151 of C.P.C was allowed by the trial court directing the judgment debtor to pay an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- to the auction purchaser i.e., the petitioner therein to set aside the auction conducted on 27.12.2012 in respect of the schedule A property, failing which, the petitioner therein was permitted to deposit balance 75% of the sale amount to get sale dated 24.07.2012 to confirm. 3. The brief facts of the case are, the respondent No.2 being the decree holder filed an execution petition vide E.P.No.41 of 2009 seeking sale of immovable properties i.e., schedule A & B properties. Schedule-A(1) property consists of three bits i.e., land in Sy.No.282/E, extent Ac.1-07 ½ guntas, Sy.No.283/A, extent Ac.0-08 guntas, Sy.No.284/Aa, extent Ac.0-07 guntas, situated at Ponnal Village, wherein the judgment debtor was set exparte. 4. The judgment debtor after exhausting all the remedies, the said property was brought to the sale and auction was conducted; wherein the respondent No.1 auction purchaser was the successful bidder having participated in the said auction and paid amount of Rs.54,00,000/- for sale of the schedule property and the respondent No.1/auction purchaser has deposited 1/4 th amount of the Rs.13,50,000/- into the court. The balance amount was directed to be deposit within a period of fifteen (15) days. 5. Before depositing the balance amounts by the auction purchaser, the decree holder contended that the judgment debtor has deposited entire E.P. amount towards full and final settlement and a full satisfaction memo also was filed into the court and the same was recorded and E.P. proceedings were closed. Therefore, the auction purchaser filed the present petition asking for confirmation of sale permitting him to deposit balance amount or otherwise to refund 1/4 th amount of Rs.13,50,000/- along with sum equal to 5% penalty of the auction amount as per Order XXI Rule 89 of C.P.C. 6. Therefore, the auction purchaser filed the present petition asking for confirmation of sale permitting him to deposit balance amount or otherwise to refund 1/4 th amount of Rs.13,50,000/- along with sum equal to 5% penalty of the auction amount as per Order XXI Rule 89 of C.P.C. 6. The decree holder has filed a counter denying the averments made in the petition and also he certified that the judgment debtor has paid the entire decreetal amount to the satisfaction of decree holder and he denied as to the seeking additional amount of sum equal to 5% of the auction amount and he also contended that since no sale certificate is issued, the petitioner herein not entitled to the additional amount of sum equal to 5% of the auction amount and therefore, prayed the court to dismiss the petition. 7. Respondent/judgment debtor also filed counter denying the averments therein contending that the petitioner therein has no locus to file the present application as the highest bidder is not the purchaser of the property unless the sale is confirmed he cannot be treated as a purchaser, as such he is not entitled for the sum equal to 5%. 8. Having heard the petitioner and the respondents, the learned trial court rejected the said application. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, the judgment debtor has filed the present civil revision petition contending that there is an error committed by the trial court in entertaining the petition under Section 151 of C.P.C seeking to confirm the sale held in auction or return the deposited amount of Rs.13,50,000/- along with sum equal to 5% of total purchase amount. It is further contended that as the sale has not been confirmed in favour of the auction purchaser as such the payment of Rs.2,75,000/- with sum equal to 5% of total purchase seems to be erroneous and sustainable. 10. Further it is contended that respondent No.1/auction purchaser has failed to deposit the balance amount within a period of fifteen (15) days as stipulated under the provisions of C.P.C. without reference to the compromise between the parties. 11. He further contended that the revision petitioner infact only liable to pay a sum of Rs.21,000/- but not the amount of Rs.1,21,000/- as claimed by the decree holder. 11. He further contended that the revision petitioner infact only liable to pay a sum of Rs.21,000/- but not the amount of Rs.1,21,000/- as claimed by the decree holder. Besides that, it is further contended that the auction purchaser has no bonafides in asking the said amount as he has withdrawn the sum of Rs.13,50,000/- i.e., 25% of the entire purchase money deposited by him at time on the date of auction. 12. The auction purchaser has not been put to any loss or damage on account of deposit of 25 % of the entire purchase amount except losing interest for the said amount for that period, and there are no bonafides of the auction purchaser in asking the said amount unless and until, the sale is confirmed, the sale certificate is issued in favour of the auction purchaser, he has no right to ask for any relief much less the sum equal to 5% of the entire purchase amount and prayed to allow the present civil revision petition. 13. Heard Sri Lakshmi Manohar , learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri G.Anandam , learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for respondent No.1. As the respondent No.1 being the auction purchaser i.e., the petitioner in E.A.No.81 of 2012, as he is the sole contesting respondent, as such notice to other respondent was dispensed with. 14. Having heard the contentions of the petitioner who contended and reiterated that though the auction purchaser has participated and he became the successful bidder, he has not became the absolute owner of the said property as the sale is not yet confirmed and sale certificate is not yet issued and the auction purchaser has not paid the entire purchase money into the court and as he has already deposited 25% of the bid amount and also contended that as per Order XXI Rule 89 of C.P.C. which reads as follows: ORDER XXI: Execution of Decrees and Orders Payment under Decree: 89. Application to set aside sale on deposit .— (1) Where immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree, 1 [any person claiming an interest in the property sold at the time of the sale or at the time of making the application, or acting for or in the interest of such person,] may apply to have the sale set aside on his depositing in Court,— (a) for payment to the purchaser, a sum equal to five per cent. of the purchase-money, and (b) for payment, to the decree-holder, the amount specified in the proclamation of sale as that for the recovery of which the sale was ordered, less any amount which may, since the date of such proclamation of sale, have been received by the decree-holder. (2) Where a person applies under rule 90 to set aside the sale of his immovable property, he shall not, unless he withdraws his application, be entitled to make or prosecute an application under this rule. (3) Nothing in this rule shall relieve the judgment-debtor from any liability he may be under in respect of costs and interest not covered by the proclamation of sale. 15. If we peruse the said Order XXI Rule 89, the relevant portion which says that the very word which is being used is where immovable and execution of any decree and which says that any person claims any interest in the property can make an application to seek the sale set aside on his depositing before the court for the payment to the purchaser the sum equal to 5% of the purchase money which the decree holder entitled. The amount specified is the proclamation amount which is mentioned on the date of proclamation and it has been received by decree holder. No doubt, the words which are used in the said provision is as to the purchase money or the amount which is specified in the proclamation amount. 16. Admittedly, in the present case an auction has been conducted and the auction purchaser i.e., respondent No.1 herein have became a successful bidder and after being the successful bidder as per the procedure of auction the respondent No.1 auction purchaser has deposited only 25% of the sale amount of Rs.13,50,000/- into the court being the successful bidder. 16. Admittedly, in the present case an auction has been conducted and the auction purchaser i.e., respondent No.1 herein have became a successful bidder and after being the successful bidder as per the procedure of auction the respondent No.1 auction purchaser has deposited only 25% of the sale amount of Rs.13,50,000/- into the court being the successful bidder. Though, he had deposited the balance amount before conclusion of the entire sale transaction and to get the sale culminate into the issuing of sale certificate but before depositing the entire sale consideration as the matter has been settled by the judgment debtor with the decree holder by paying the entire decreetal amount or the E.P. amount, whereby decree holder has filed a memo recording full satisfaction of the entire E.P. amount, in such case, the word which is used in the Order XXI Rule 89 of C.P.C. which says that once the property sold and there is no sale certificate is issued and issuing of sale certificate is still under process and there is no completion of entire procedure of auction before the court and as there are further steps to be followed as per Order XXI Rule 89 till issuance of sale certificate, as the entire purchase money was not deposited by the auction purchaser, as such, the findings given by the E.P. court that Rule 89 suggests two conditions; one is depositing of sum equal to 5% of the purchase money to be paid to the purchaser and second depositing of the amount specified in the proclamation of sale as any amount received by the decree holder since the date of such proclamation in the court. If these conditions are satisfied, the court shall make an order for setting aside the same. 17. The word purchase price under Rule 89 means, that it is actual price, but does not include poundage, solatium, non- judicial stamps etc. In addition to the payment to the decreetal amount to the decree holder, 5% of the purchase money should be deposited for payment to the auction purchaser to get the sale set aside. 17. The word purchase price under Rule 89 means, that it is actual price, but does not include poundage, solatium, non- judicial stamps etc. In addition to the payment to the decreetal amount to the decree holder, 5% of the purchase money should be deposited for payment to the auction purchaser to get the sale set aside. It is also further held that the said amount should be determined by the court before such deposit and that this amount constitutes penalty and also held that the object of the section is to safeguard the interest of the auction purchaser and payment of sum equal to 5% of the purchase to is the auction purchaser is to mitigate the loss caused to him. 18. In the present case, no doubt, the judgment debtor is bound to pay 5% of the purchase money to the auction purchaser to make the loss good to him as decree holder and judgement debtor seeking the auction to be set aside for the reason that they have settled the matter between them and the decree holder receive his entire E.P. amount as judgment debtor seeking setting aside the auction. Hence, to safeguard the interest of the auction purchaser by paying the sum equal to 5% of purchase which constitute penalty to the judgment debtor. 19. The learned E.P. court while understanding the word purchase price has made and observation that the same is actual price, though held that it does not include poundage, solatium, non-judicial stamps etc., he also pointed out that the very intention of the above provision is to safeguard the interest of the auction purchaser, but in the present case, the interest of the auction purchaser is subject to the provision of Order XXI Rule 89 and the subsequent provisions under Order XXI Rule 89 where the said judgment debtor is entitled to seek setting aside of the same at any point of time till the sale certificate is issued. In the present case, the auction of the said property is not yet concluded or culminated in issuance of sale certificate and as the amount which is deposited by the auction purchaser is only 25% of the auction amount and the direction to pay deposit 5% of the purchase money i.e., the amount of Rs.54,000/- would amount to be irrational and cannot be accepted for the reason that the actual loss which occurred by the auction purchaser and the very intention of safeguarding the interest of the auction purchaser should be only to the extent of the amount that he has deposited into the court, but not the entire auction amount, as such this Court finds that the finding given by the learned E.P. court that the said amount which is deposited i.e., 5% on the sale amount means and it should be treated as entire sale amount or the purchase money, appears to be incorrect and it should be on the actual amount which is deposited i.e., 25% or if it is deposited more than that or on the entire purchase amount. 20. In the present case as he has deposited only 25% of auction amount, the learned E.P. court ought to have directed the respondent judgment debtor to deposit 5% of the actual amount paid, but not one the entire purchase money as it is in the preliminary stage. As the property has not yet been sold and sale certificate is issued or the sale is made absolute. In such case, the impugned order appears to be erroneous and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. 21. For the aforesaid reason, this civil revision petition is partly allowed permitting the revision petitioner / judgment debtor herein to deposit the 5% of Rs.13,50,000/- and seek cancelation of the said auction deducting the amount which is already paid as per the compliance of the order passed by this Court vide order, dated 28.09.2012, within one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 22. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.