K. VEERASWAMI, C.J.:- The judgment-debtor is the appellant before us, and the question is whether to the application he filed for setting aside of the court auction sale at which the decree-holder was the purchaser, Rule 90 of Order 21. Civil P.C. was applicable. It is common ground that the judgment-debtor failed to furnish security as required by the proviso to R.90. The first two courts have found-and Kailasam, J. did not differ-that the properties were sold for an inadequate price as a result of wrong details set out in the sale proclamation regarding those properties. There were material irregularities in giving description of the properties and there was as a result, as has been found, a substantial injury caused to the judgment-debtor. On an earlier occasion when the question of necessity to furnish security under Rule 90 came up for consideration in C.M.A. No.102 of 1956, Anantanarayanan, J. (as he then was) saw force in the contention and said that in view of the decision in Karuppanna Goundan v. Ponnuthayee, 1956-1 Mad LJ 190 : (AIR 1956 Mad 198) Section 47 would apply. But at the same time the learned Judge said that there may also be other matters which should