King, J.

1. The subject-matter of this appeal is a sale in execution of a decree in O.S. No. 86 of 1916 held on the 30th September, 1939. On the 27th October, the appellant applied under Order 21, Rule 90 to have the sale set aside. The learned Judge ordered that he should furnish security under the proviso to Rule 90 and granted him time for one week for this purpose. On the same day (31st October) the appellant filed another application asking for more time for furnishing security, and eventually time was extended to the llth November on which day a draft security bond was tendered, to the Court by the appellant. On the 15th November, without passing any orders in regard to the adequacy of the security tendered or to the necessity for furnishing any registered security bond, the Court issued notice to the opposite side; When the respondent appeared he took the objection that the property offered as security was not sufficient and the Court ordered the security to be tested. The result of the test was that the property offered as security was found to be wholly inadequate and the Court thereupon dismissed the application of the appellant without considering it on its "meri