Time-bound deposit requirement under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC barred late objection to sale setting aside.

An objection to set aside a sale under Order XXI, Rule 90 CPC could not be entertained unless the prescribed deposit or security was furnished within the period when the objection was validly filed. Because security was furnished after limitation expired, the court had no power to extend time and later compliance could not revive an invalid objection. The proviso was treated as barring entertainment of the objection altogether, unlike the earlier Patna view that only barred admission. The objection was therefore not maintainable and the revision failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an objection to setting aside a sale under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could be entertained when the required deposit or security was furnished after the expiry of the period for filing the objection.

Analysis: The proviso applicable to the court barred entertainment of an objection unless the applicant complied with the requirement of depositing the prescribed amount or furnishing security within the time when the objection could validly be filed. The security in the present case was furnished after the limitation period had expired. Since the court had no power to extend the time, the objection was incapable of valid entertainment on the date of filing, and later compliance could not revive an invalid objection. The earlier Patna view was distinguished because the wording of the proviso there only barred admission, whereas the proviso applicable here barred entertainment altogether.

Conclusion: The objection was not maintainable, and the revision failed.

---