JUDGMENT
1. Following Appa Rao v. Krishna Ayyangar 25 M. 537 we hold that the application for sale should be taken to be an application for an order absolute for sale. It is not, therefore, correct to say that all the prior proceedings in the case were null and void. We also think that the application of 1903 was granted. Notice was given to defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and sale was ordered and took place. But on application under Section 311, Civil Procedure Code, the sale was set aside at the instance of another defendant to whom notice had not been given. This, however, did not annul the order for sale and things were merely put back to the position in which they were when order for sale had been granted. We, therefore, set aside the order of the District Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with costs in this and the lower appellate Court.
