Horwill, J.

1. The respondent in this application is the mortgagee and the petitioner the mortgagor. The mortgagee brought a suit for sale and obtained a preliminary decree and then for a final decree. A sale of the property was held and 32 days later the petitioner put in an application purporting to be under Order 21, Rule 89, to set aside the sale, depositing the whole mortgage amount plus five per cent, for the auction-purchaser and costs. The Court held that under Article 166 (although the provision of the Limitation Act is not mentioned) the application was not in time and dismissed it. The petitioner then filed a review petition stating that his application was not one under Order 21, Rule 89, but one under Order 34, Rule 5. No serious objection to the hearing of this review application was made on the ground that a review did not lie and after full discussion of the applicability of Order 34, Rule 5, Order 21, Rules 89 to 92, and Article 166 of the Limitation Act, the Court passed an order dismissing the review petition. Against the order on the review petition, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

2. It is argued in support of the lower Courts order that a re