Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. The main question for decision in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the application of the petitioners under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code out of which this petition arises is sustainable. The relevant facts are few and are these. In execution of a decree obtained by the first respondent against the second respondent, one-fourth share in certain items of Immovable property were attached, and sold. The second respondent and the petitioners were co-owners entitled each to a third share in all the properties that were attached. But subsequent to the attachment there was an agreement to refer the matter to arbitration and there was an award in and by which the properties were divided into three equal shares and some of the items which formed the subject-matter of the attachment exclusively fell to the share of the petitioners. The sale in court-auction in execution of the decree of the first respondent took place subsequent to this division. This application is by the petitioners to set aside the sale in regard to the properties which fell exclusively to their shares. The learned District Munsif allowed the application of the petitioners