1. The question in this case relates to the construction of Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. The decree under execution is one for sale of four items of property mortgaged to the decree-holder. The 5th defendant in the suit had a subsequent charge on items 1, 2 and 4 while the 10th defendant had purchased item 3 after the decree-holders mortgage. The 5th defendant obtained an order from the executing Court that the 3rd item should be sold first and that items 1, 2 and 4 should be brought to sale only if the proceeds of the sale of item $ proved to be insufficient to discharge the decree. The order purported to be passed under Order 21 Rule 66 C.P.C. relating to the settlement of the proclamation of sale. Against that order the 10th defendant preferred an appeal contending that the first Courts order fell really within the provision of Section 47 C.P.C. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal on the ground that the order was passed under Order 21 Rule 66. We are of opinion that the dismissal of the appeal cannot be supported. It is hardly necessary to observe that in deciding whether an appeal is competent the substance of the order should be looked at, and that th