ORDER

Lort-Williams, J. - In this suit a sale was held by the Registrar on 10th February 1933. On 13th March, the defendant Amritakrishna Datta gave notice that, on Monday 20th March, an application would be made for an order that the sale be set aside. Article 166, Lim. Act, provides that such an application must be made within thirty days of the sale. The thirtieth day fell on 12th March, which was a' Sunday. Therefore the applicant had, until 13th March inclusive, to make his application. The first point taken by the plaintiff is that there were two purchasers at the sale, and that notice was given to one only. I am satisfied from the affidavits that the other purchaser had actual notice of the application, and that absence of formal notice is not a bar. This was decided by Suhrawardy and Duval, JJ., in the case of Charan Chandra Ghosh Vs. Rai Behari Lal Mitra Bahadur, AIR 1925 Cal 157 .

2. The next point taken by the plaintiff is more difficult to determine. It is clear that notice of the application was served on 13th March, but it is argued on his behalf that this is not sufficient, and that the serving of the notice is not the "application" which must be made within the thirty