( 1 ) THE appellant-decree-holder obtained a final decree in a mortgage suit, on Jan. 18, 1971 on the foot of a mortgage deed dated July 27,1959. He laid the execution in E. P. NO. 48 of 1972. Items 1 and 12 of the E. P. Schedule were sold on Sept. 4, 1978 in which the second respondent herein purchased item 12 and the third respondent purchased item 1 of the E. P. Schedule. To set aside the sale, an application has been filed under O. XXI Rr. 89 and 90 of the Civil P. C. the lower Court set aside the above sales. As against that order in respect of item 12 of E. P. Schedule the present appeal has been filed. At this stage it is necessary to clarify that the third respondent did not file any appeal. Therefore the order setting aside the sale made in his favour was allowed to become final.

( 2 ) THE sale was set aside on three grounds. The second respondent acting on behalf of the decree-holder, played fraud on the Court in undervaluing the property by the Amin. The bidders who participated in the auction are only collusive bidders propped up by the second respondent. The permission granted to the decree-holder to bid in the auction is personal and the second respon