1. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies. This appears to me to be sound. The petition to set aside the order was put in under Order 21, Rule 90, and no second appeal lies against an order under that rule. I am asked to treat the appeal as a civil revision petition and it is urged that the executing Court committed two errors of jurisdiction:
in adjourning the sale from time to-time beyond the seven days' period allowed to it by law.
in allowing the decree-holders' vakil to purchase the property at the sale.
2. As to (1) I cannot see that anything more than an irregularity has occurred, and it is not made out that that irregularity in itself occasioned any loss or injury to the judgment-debtor. Though on the findings the sale was properly proclaimed, only one bidder appeared even on the first day of sale. So any postponement of the sale would work really for the judgment-debtor's benefit rather than to his disadvantage, as affording opportunity for other bidders to appear.
3. As to (2) the finding is that the vakil' purchased for himself and not for his client. That being so again I cannot see how the judgment-debtor's interests are adversely affected. Such a purchase may be open to attack on principle: Subbarayudu v. Kottayya  15 Mad. 389 and may be, in-certain cases, avoided. But it is not an error of law or of jurisdiction if the Court does not avoid it. In the present case the executing Court was forced with the alternative of an abortive sale or knocking down the property to the vakil. It chose the latter course and I am not prepared to hold that it erred in law or jurisdiction in so doing. The petition is dismissed with costs.