1. The question is whether the orders of the Lower Court dismissing these two petitions by the appellants as out of time are correct. Of those petitions C.M.P. No. 90 of 1920 was by the appellant for the setting aside of a court sale held on 19-9-1887 in execution of a mortgage decree and for a fresh sale on an amended proclamation. He also asked for an amendment of the execution petition of his opponent, the decree holder, by bringing it into conformity with the decree under execution. In C.M.P. No. 91 of 1920 he asked leave to amplify this prayer by asking the court to "order, if, necessary a fresh proclamation of sale, giving correct information as to the interests of the various defendants with a full description of the nature and value of the properties." There was also a prayer for leave to withdraw the portion of paragraph 20 in C.M.P. No. 90, in which he declined to proceed against 5th to 14th defendants, transferees of the decree holders, purchasers. This last prayer has been subjected to special objection. But the amendment was asked for before any prejudice could have arisen and it would have raised no new question of limitation. This objection is therefore groun