1. This appeal has been preferred by the 13th defendant and is directed against the lower Court's order rejecting his application to set aside the sale held on 30.5.1955 in execution of the decree in O.S. 90 of 1123 of that Court. The grounds urged are that the sale was adjourned to a date beyond 30 days and was held without fresh proclamation as contemplated under O. XXI, R.69(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, that the proclamation did not show the hour at which the sale was to be held as required under the law, that the amount directed to be deposited by the decree-holder-auction-purchaser for payment to an attaching decree-holder was not deposited on the day fixed but only on a later day and that material prejudice was caused by the irregularities in the sale.

2. First of all, we will deal with the question whether the sale is liable to be set aside because it was held beyond 30 days and without a fresh proclamation. O. XXI, R.69(2) states that when a sale is adjourned under sub-r. (1) for a longer period than 30 days a fresh proclamation under R.67 shall be made unless the judgment-debtor consents to waive it. Here clearly there was no waiver. But the sale, it is point