Walter Salis Schwabe, Kt., K.C.C.J.

1. A preliminary point is taken that no Second Appeal lies because it is said that this is an appeal on a petition based on there being a material irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale within the meaning of Order XXI, Rule 90, that the order made under Rule 92 setting aside the sale, was an order made by reason of that material irregularity or fraud, and that as no Second Appeal lies from orders made under Rule 92, there can be no Second Appeal here. The answer is that it may be perfectly true as regards part of the appeal, but one of the grounds on which the appellant relies is that no notice was given of the application for attachment and order for the sale of the property, and that that comes under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, and is therefore appealable as a decree.

2. The only direct authority on the point is the judgment of Oldfield and Seshagiri Ayyar, JJ., in Neelu Neithiar v. Subramania Moothan (1920) 11 L.W. 59 where, under somewhat similar circumstances which were not really so strong as this, because the failure to give notice was at a later stage, they held that, where an application is made which is partly