Judgement Appeal from two orders of the Chief Court (September 8 and September 20, 1909) made in proceedings in execution of a decree in appellants favour against the defendant as administratrix of the estate of one Maung Shu Hman, deceased. By the first of these orders the Court held that no appeal lay from an order of the District Court of Amherst which (inter alia) prohibited the appellant from bidding at a sale at which certain promissory notes taken in execution of the aforesaid decree were ordered to be sold, while by the second the Chief Court of Lower Burma refused to revise the said order of the District Court of Amherst. The above-mentioned decree was made by the District Court for Rs.103,252.8.0, being money lent to the deceased. The decree also declared that the appellant had a lien on thirty-three promissory notes which had been deposited with him as security by the deceased. In execution the appellant applied for an order for the sale of the notes. The respondent objected that as the said notes were all made and payable in the district of Karenni (which is not within the jurisdiction of the Court) the sale should take place at Loikaw, the chief town of that district, and that the appellant should not be allowed to bid directly or indirectly. The appellant contended that as the notes were the only means he had of recovering the debt he would lose part of his judgment debt if they were sold below their face values. The Court, however, ordered the sale of the notes within its own jurisdiction after six months had expired, but with notice to be published in Karenni, and under s. 294, Civil Procedure Code, directed that the appellant, the decree-holder, should be forbidden to bid for the property directly or indirectly. Law Rep. 38 Ind. App. 126 ( 1910- 1911). Ko Tha Hnyin V. Ma Hnin I 62 Thereafter the appellant petitioned the Chief Court for a revision of the said order, but at the instance of the Court his petition was amended into one of appeal. Law Rep. 38 Ind. App. 126 ( 1910- 1911). Ko Tha Hnyin V. Ma Hnin I 62 Thereafter the appellant petitioned the Chief Court for a revision of the said order, but at the instance of the Court his petition was amended into one of appeal. The grounds thereof were that in forbidding the appellant to bid the Court had acted with material irregularity for that according to its practice such leave is granted to the decree-holder as a matter of course and is refused only where the conduct of the sale is in the hands of the decree-holder himself, and not where, as in this case, it is in the hands of the Court. The Chief Court by its order of September 8, 1909, held that an appeal did not lie from the said order of the District Judge. It relied upon the case of Judoonath Mundul v. Brojo Mohun Ghose (( 1886) I. L. R. 13 Calc. 174.), where it was held that C. P. C, s. 588, sub-s. 16, allowed an appeal only against an order under s. 294 confirming or setting aside or refusing to set aside a sale, but not against an order refusing a decree-holder permission to purchase at a sale held in execution of his decree. Thereupon the appellant applied to the Chief Court to review and revise the said order on substantially the same grounds as those on which the appeal was based. On September 20, 1909, the Court rejected the application on the ground that there was "no case for the exercise of revisional powers." J. W. McCarthy, for the appellant, contended that the said orders were wrong and should be reversed. The sale was under the control of the Court and not of the decree-holder. There was no reason given for refusing the latter permission to bid. The notes were being sold far away from the usual residences of the makers of the notes and amongst persons to whom the makers were unknown. In order that the notes should be sold at a reasonable price and to prevent considerable loss the appellant ought to have been allowed to bid. The order of the District Court refusing it was made under s.294, and all orders under that section without any exception are appealable orders under s. 588. In order that the notes should be sold at a reasonable price and to prevent considerable loss the appellant ought to have been allowed to bid. The order of the District Court refusing it was made under s.294, and all orders under that section without any exception are appealable orders under s. 588. If the order was not under s. 294 it was a decree within the meaning of s. 2 of the Code and was appealable under s. 244 (c). Even if no appeal lay, the Chief Court ought to have revised the said order having regard to all the circumstances by striking out the prohibition. The respondent did not appear. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD MACNAGHTEN. Their Lordships are of opinion that the judgment under appeal is right. If the appellant had applied for leave to appeal, and his application had been refused, there could not have been any appeal. It is a matter of administration. The point was expressly decided at Calcutta in the year 1886, and there is no authority impugning that decision. The point was raised there, and it was decided by the High Court that no appeal lies " from an order refusing to give a decree-holder permission to purchase at a sale held in execution of a decree." Their Lordships will therefore humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal ought to be dismissed. There is no appearance by the respondent, so that there will be no order as to costs.