JUDGMENT 1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order by which the Court below has refused to cancel a sale held in execution of a decree for arrears of rent on the 19th July 1911. On the 28th July 1911, two of the judgment-debtors applied under sec. 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for reversal of the sale, and the requisite amount was brought into Court on the 29th July. Although the application was made by two of the judgment-debtors, a note was appended thereto, to the effect that on the 17th May 1902 the tenants had transferred the holding to the present Petitioner and that the money deposited had been furnished by the purchaser. On the 1st August 1911, the applicants presented a fresh petition, in which they asked for permission to withdraw their previous application as also the sum deposited. This application was taken up for disposal three days later, and by consent of the decree-holder and the judgment-debtors, the application under sec. 174 was allowed to (sic) with the result that (sic) firmed. The (sic) conveyance, (sic) stance (sic) August (sic) be (sic) the consequence that the judgment-debtors had withdrawn the money borrowed from him and had also become entitled to appropriate the sale proceeds which stood to their credit in Court. The Court refused to entertain this application of the prior purchaser. We are now invited to set aside this order. A bare statement of the facts makes it manifest that the order of the Court below cannot be supported. Sub sec. 2 of sec. 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act provides that if the deposit mentioned in sub-sec. (1) is made within 30 days by the judgment-debtor, the Court shall pass an order setting aside the sale. It cannot be disputed that the application in this case was made by the judgment-debtors ; nor is there any controversy that the requisite amount was deposited. The mere circumstance that the judgment-debtors stated in their application that they had obtained the money from a person to whom they had previously transferred the holding is, in our opinion, immaterial. It cannot be disputed that the application in this case was made by the judgment-debtors ; nor is there any controversy that the requisite amount was deposited. The mere circumstance that the judgment-debtors stated in their application that they had obtained the money from a person to whom they had previously transferred the holding is, in our opinion, immaterial. The case before us does not belong to the class of cases of which Ranajit Kumar v. Jogendra Nath (sic) may be taken as the type, and in which it has been held that when an application (sic) is made by a stranger to (sic) half of thejudgment-(sic) establish his (sic) In the (sic) was made debtors. If this turns out to be true, the judgment-debtors will be called upon to bring the money back into Court within seven days from this date. If they fail to do so, the Court below will forthwith proceed to realise the money from them by execution of the order of this Court, as if it were a decree for money against them. There will be no order for the costs of this Rule.