Pandrang Row, J.

1. These appeals are connected. One is from an order dismissing the application of the appellant to restore to file the petition to set aside a sale presented by him which had been dismissed for default; and the other is an appeal from the order dismissing the petition to set aside the sale. The appellant who was the first defendant in O.S. No. 18 of 1934 had been adjudicated an insolvent and the application, was made by him to set aside the sale on various grounds. That application was dismissed for default on the 9th December, 1937. An application to restore the petition to file was made on the next day and that also was dismissed. As a result we have two appeals from the two orders which were passed against the appellant. So far as the application made on the 10th December, 1937, to restore the petition to file is concerned it is not seriously argued that such a petition was competent. The learned Subordinate Judge relied on the Full Bench decision in Arunachalam v. Veerappa Chettiar AIR1931Mad656 and his finding to the effect that the petition to restore the application to set aside the sale is not maintainable is obviously right. It follows from this th