Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.
1. The judgment-debtor filed a petition, praying that the Court would adjourn the sale for six weeks to enable him to raise the amount of the decree by private sale or mortgage. Referring to the circumstance that the decree did not provide for the payment of interest after the date of suit, he undertook, in consideration that an adjournment was granted to him, to pay interest at 12 per cent, from the date of suit to date of realization, together with the amount of the decree. At the foot of the petition a note was made that the plaintiff consented to the adjournment, on the undertaking of the judgment-debtor to pay interest from the date of suit at 12 per cent. The Court then passed the following order : 'As the decree-holder consents, the sale is postponed for six weeks to enable the judgment-debtor to dispose of his property by private sale, if he can do so.'
2. The order of the Court professes to proceed on the consent of the decree-holder, and from the circumstances that the consent was conditional, it is to be inferred that the Court approved the condition. We are unable to distinguish this case from that of Sadasiva Pillai v. Ramalinga Pillai L.R. 2 IndAp 219.
3. The order of the Subordinate Judge is set aside and he is directed to pass fresh orders. The costs of this appeal will abide and follow the result.