JUDGMENT Harries, C.J. - This is a petition for revision of an order of a learned District Judge affirming an order of an Appellate Officer who affirmed an order of a Board in a debt settlement matter. It appears that the property of the judgment-debtors was sold and purchased by the decree-holders. Difficulty arose about possession and eventually the decree-holders auction-purchasers brought a title suit, which was eventually compromised, and it is under that compromise decree that the decree-holders now claim title. Their title as auction-purchasers really disappeared and they now have title under the compromise decree. It appears to me that sec. 37A can only apply to cases where the sale has given the auction-purchasers a title to the property. If the sale has been given a go by and the decree-holders have another root of title other than the same, then it appears to me that sec. 37A can have no application. This point, although it was in the grounds of revision to the District Judge, has never been touched by him in his judgment. 2. Another point was taken that there were four decree-holders, the fourth being one Helaluddin, son of Hashi Mamud. There is nothing on the record to suggest that this fourth decree-holder was ever made a party in the proceedings, but his name appears in the award and therefore that seems to satisfy the District Judge that all was well. The fact that his name was in the award was wholly immaterial if he was not a party because how could the award bind him if he had never an opportunity of appearing. There is nothing to suggest on the record that this man did have an opportunity to appear although the award was eventually made against him. 3. In my judgment the proceedings here are wholly unsatisfactory and must be set aside. In the result, therefore, I allow this petition, set aside the order of the learned District Judge and dismiss the application to the Board. No one appears to oppose except the learned Advocate for certain minors whose costs have already been provided for. That being so, I make no order for costs in this application. The Rule is accordingly made absolute.