1. The petitioner judgment-debtor never applied to the Court either for adjournment of the sale of the third lot or for stopping that sale. He tendered to the officer conducting the sale that portion of the decree amount which would have remained if the purchasers of the first two lota paid up the whole of the purchase-money due by them within the 15 days allowed to them and did not make default.
2. We do not think that the words “the debt and costs” mentioned in Cl. (3), O. 21, R. 69, could be interpreted to main “the balance of the decree debt and costs which would remain if by a legal fiction the sales of previous lots not yet completed by payment of the whole of the purchase money were taken as completed by treating the whole of the purchase money as actually paid up.”
3. We do not say that the Court, even without an application from the judgment debtor had no power to adjourn the sale of the third lot: see Cl. (1), O. 21, R. 69, but we do not see our way to holding that because the Court of its own accord did not mercifully take that course, the sale of the third lot is vitiated by irregularity or illegality and could be set aside to the prejudice of the bona fide purchaser in such Court auction.
4. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
S.N/R.K
5. Appeal dismissed.