same would render the sale null and void. It is no doubt true that in view of the second proviso to Rule 85 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure (Bombay Amendment), the Court is empowered to condone the delay in depositing the amount falling short of the full amount of the purchase price, if the same is not deposited due to some bona fide mistake or miscalculation. It appears that during the pendency of the execution proceedings, an application was filed by the respondent nos.2 to 5 at Exh.133 for grant of permission to deposit the amount of general stamp paper for certificate on the ground that there was some bona fide mistake and the calculation of the amount for purchase of stamp paper was not given and therefore, the amount could not be paid. It further appears from statement made on behalf of the respondent nos.2 to 5 that the application filed by the respondent nos.2 to 5 for grant of permission to deposit the amount of general stamp paper for sale certificate was pending when the impugned order was passed on 19.9.2011. If that was so, it was necessary for the executing Court to have first decided the application filed by the respondent nos.2 to 5 at Exh.133 and then the executing Court ought to have proceeded to decide the application filed by the petitioner. However, this was not done and the executing Court erroneously observed in the impugned order that the delay in filing the amount required for the purchase of stamp paper could be condoned, as at the relevant time, the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure was pending. The approach of the executing Court in rejecting the application without considering the application filed by the respondent nos.2 to 5 for permission
