This is an appeal by the petitioner in the Court below in an application under Order 21, rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the sale on account of certain material irregularities, and alleged fraud. The learned IInd Assistant Judge of the City Civil Court, Madras, dismissed the application because the petitioner (appellant) defaulted to furnish security as demanded by the Court under the First proviso to Order 21, rule 90, Civil Procedure Code. The facts are practically admitted, and the appeal merely involves a simple question of the application of certain relevant legal principles to facts of this character.

What happened in the Court below was this. The petitioner (appellant) had not furnished security, and the matter was before the Court on 31st October, 1957. On the adjourned date, there was a definite order made calling upon the appellant to furnish security in a sum of Rs. 5,000 and the proceedings were again adjourned to 16th November, 1957. On that date, security was not furnished but the learned Counsel for the decree-holder appeared, and took notice voluntarily, and desired to file a counter-statement. He was permitted to file this counter-stat