JUDGMENT :- Both the Courts below are in error when they held that the application filed by the judgment-debtor was one under O. 21 R. 90 C. P. C. and not under Sec. 47. It is clear from the case set out in the application for setting aside the sale for the judgment-debtor attacked the very order for sale, stating that the order was procured by misrepresenting the facts to the Court, and that therefore the order was illegal. An illegality of that kind will not amount to a mere irregularity or illegality in the publication or conduct of the sale, so as to come within O. 21 R. 90 C. P. C. The judgment-debtor will therefore have a right to challenge the sale that is the outcome of an order procured by a fraudulent misrepresentation in proceedings under S. 47 C. P. C. The executing Court will then have no power or jurisdiction to demand security from the judgment debtor, as it did in the present case.

This, however, is not the only error in the order of the lower appellate Court. The learned District Judge has held that S. 47 will not apply, as the execution proceedings related to a simple money decree. I am utterly unable to understand what the learned District Judge meant by