instant case. On the other hand, requisite amount was deposited long before confirmation of the sale and consequently, in view of judgment of this Court in the case of Girdhari Lal (supra) also, the sale cannot be confirmed. At the risk of repetition, it may be highlighted that JDs sought permission to deposit the requisite amount within prescribed period and they were also ready with the requisite amount, but there was delay by the Court in granting permission to JDs for depositing the said amount and for this delay, the JDs obviously cannot be penalised. It would not be out of place to notice here that the JDs, without permission of the Court, could not have deposited the requisite amount because neither the Treasury Office nor the Bank would have accepted the said amount without permission of the Court. Thus, examined from any angle, there was no delay by JDs in depositing the requisite amount under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC. Consequently, the Executing Court had no discretion, but to set aside the sale in view of mandatory provision of Order 21 Rule 89 CPC. Resultantly, first contention raised by counsel for the petitioner has to be negatived.
