These Revision Petitions arise out of orders setting aside a Court auction-sale on the ground of fraud and material irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale, and excusing the delay in filing the petition to set aside the sale. The auction-purchaser is the petitioner. The first respondent who is one of the judgment-debtors alleged that he was not served with the sale notice as he was absent at Rangoon and the decree-holder committed fraud in taking the sale notice to his village knowing that he was at Rangoon, that there was no proper proclamation and that the sale was vitiated by material irregularities. The decree-holder contended among others that the petition to set aside the sale was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond 30 days of the sale. Two petitions were filed by the first respondent in the District Munsif’s Court of Tanuku, E.A. No. 3420 1941, which was a petition under Order 21, rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the sale and E.A. No. 947 of 1943 to excuse the delay in filing the petition to set aside the sale under section 18 of the Indian Limitation Act. Both the applications were allowed and the sale was set aside. The said orders wer