Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.

1. I very much regret I cannot interfere with the order of the lower Court in Revision. The petitioner who was judgment-debtor paid the required amounts according to the rules under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 89, apparently with a view to enable her to apply for setting aside the sale, under the terms of that section. But it is now clear that there was no application made by her to the Court either in writing or by parol. A few days after this the Court confirmed the same and more than 90 days thereafter the petitioner applied for a review of the order of confirmation. The lower Court has held that the review petition was barred by limitation and dismissed it. Assuming that the lower Court erred in its view of the law with regard to limitation to be applied to the review petition, I do not see what jurisdiction I have to interfere. However, that may be, in view of the fact that no application was made by the petitioner to set aside the sale, I see no substance even in the application for the review and no use even if I should direct the lower Court to consider the application of the petitioner for review of the order. Three learned Judges of this