Varadachariar, J.

1. This Revision Petition raises a question of some importance turning on the effect of the proviso recently added in this Presidency to Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code. Under that proviso, the Court to which an application under Rule 90 is presented may "before admitting the application call upon the applicant to furnish security." In the present case, the Court ordered the applicant to deposit the sale amount in cash. He tendered a draft bond offering immovable property as security. The Court declined to accept it and accordingly rejected the petition. Against this order the petitioner preferred an appeal to the lower appellate Court and that Court has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the case does not fall within the terms of Order 43, Rule 1(j) which gives a right of appeal against an order "refusing to set aside a sale." The learned Judge was of opinion that an order contemplated by this sub-rule was one passed after the Court had entertained the application and not one whereby the Court declined to entertain the application.

2. There can be little doubt that at the time when the sub-clauses of Order 43, Rule 1 were framed, this distincti