Pandrang Row, J.

1. This is an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore dismissing an application to set aside a sale under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, on the ground that the security required to be furnished by his order made a few days earlier, had not been furnished. The only ground taken in this appeal is that the order of the Subordinate Judge requiring security to be furnished is itself without jurisdiction and therefore the order dismissing the petition to set aside the sale on the ground that the security has not been furnished is wrong.

2. There is no doubt that in this case the learned Subordinate Judge did not bear in mind that under Order 21, Rule 90 the Court could demand security only before admitting the application and not afterwards. In this case it is clear from the endorsements made on the petitions that notice was ordered in both the petitions, that is the petition to set aside the sale and also the petition to dispense with security and the Advocate on the other side was actually heard before orders were passed in both the petitions. It cannot therefore be said that either of the petitions had not been admitted. Usually an