1. The short point that arises for decision in the Second Appeal is whether the application filed by the 9th defendant to set aside the court sale of item 3 is barred by limitation or not.

2. There is no doubt that the decree, in pursuance of which execution was taken, provided that item 3 should be sold in the last instance. But actually, the item 3 has been sold first.

3. The court sale was on 28-7-1124. The 9th defendant filed on 26-3-1952 the present application for setting aside the sale under Order XXI R.90 and S.47 and 151 of the C P.C. on the ground that the sale was contrary to the directions contained in the decree and as such, void and also on other grounds. The application was opposed by the court-auction-purchaser on the ground that it is barred by limitation. It will be noted that the application for setting aside the sale was filed nearly three years after the sale.

4. According to the 9th defendant, the sale of item 3 being void, no question of limitation arises at all. On the other hand, the auction-purchaser contended that the sale will at the most be only a voidable one and as such will be governed by the provisions of Art.166 of the Limitation Act and t