JUDGMENT Sir John Stanley, Knight, C.J. and Banerji, J. - This is an appeal from an order setting aside an auction sale upon an application made under order XXI, rule 89, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts are these:--The respondent, Ahmad Said Khan, obtained a decree against the judgment-debtor, Rafat Khan, on the 8th of October, 1909, for sale upon two mortgages. Subsequently, in November, 1909, he obtained another decree against the same judgment-debtor, but this was a simple decree for money. In execution of this latter decree he caused mauza Neali, one of the villages comprised in the mortgages upon which he had obtained the earlier decree, to be sold by auction. It was purchased by the appellant, Muhammad Ahmad-ullah Khan. Thereupon the decree-holder, Ahmad Said Khan, applied under order XXI, rule 89, to have the sale aside and made the deposit required by the section. This application has been granted by the court below, which was of opinion that the decree-holder in his capacity as mortgagee was a person who held an interest in the property sold within the meaning of rule 89. That rule empowers a person who is the owner of immovable property which has been sold in execution of a decree, or holds an interest in such property by virtue of a title acquired before the sale to make an application to have the sale set aside. It is not alleged on behalf of Ahmad Said Khan that he is the owner of the property Bold, but he contends that as mortgagee of the said property he holds an interest therein by virtue of which be is competent to make the application. No doubt, ordinarily a mortgagee of the property sold is a person who has an interest in it, and in view of the provisions of rule 89 he would be competent to make an application, but we have to consider the facts of this particular case. Here the holder of the decree for money was also the holder of two mortgages in respect of the property of which be sought to have a sale. He caused the property to be sold either free from the mortgages, or subject to the mortgages. If it was sold free from the mortgages he must be deemed to have abandoned his mortgages, and in that case he has no interest, in the property sold. He caused the property to be sold either free from the mortgages, or subject to the mortgages. If it was sold free from the mortgages he must be deemed to have abandoned his mortgages, and in that case he has no interest, in the property sold. If he caused the property to be sold subject to the mortgages, the sale only related to the interest of the mortgagor, that is, his right of redemption. In this right of redemption the mortgagee has no interest. Therefore, from either point of view, the decree-holder in this case has no interest in the property sold such as would entitle him to make an application under rule 89. We think the judgment of the court below to the contrary is erroneous. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order of the court below and dismiss the application of the respondent, Ahmad Said Khan, to have the sale set aside, with costs in both courts.