Order: 1. The petitioner herein filed R.E.A. No. 126 of 1976 in R.E.P. No. 56 of 1972 in O.S. No. 318 of 1966 under sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to pass an order setting aside the sale dated 22nd March, 1973 regarding the A Schedule property in the petition. 2. In this order, the parties are referred to as in R.E.A. No. 126 of 1976. 3. The second respondent obtained a decree against the third and the fourth respondents in O.S. No. 318 of 1966. On 9th December, 1968, a preliminary decree was passed and on 18th July, 1969 the final decree was passed On 28th February, 1969 the third responded was adjudged as an insolvent in IP. No 18 of 1968. The properties in dispute got vested with the receiver who administered the estate of the insolvent, the third respondent On 29th April, 1970, the Official Receiver who is the fifth respondent herein, auctioned the sutt properties, and in that auction the petitioner purchased A and B schedule properties. On 3rd November, 1972 the receiver executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein. In R.E.P. No. 5 of 1970, the decree-holder that is the second respondent prayed for selling the A and B schedule properties. The properties were brought to auction through Court on the execution petition filed by the second res-pondent and in that auction the B schedule property was sold on 11th March, 1971 and the same was purchased by the sixth respon. dent herein. On 16th April, 1971, the sale was confirmed. R.E.. No. 1739 of 1972 was filed by the petitisoner to set aside the sale of B schedule properties. In the meanwhile, the second respondent filed R.E.P. No. 56 of 1972 on 29th September, 1971, for sale of the A schedule properties through Court. On 22nd March, 1973, the A schedule property was sold and was confirmed in favour of the first respondent. On 18th June, 1973. In E.A. No 1739 of 1972 filed by the petitioner for set-ting aside the sale of the B schedule property, the court directed the petitioner to depo-sit the entire decree amount in O.S.No. 318 of 1966 and accordingly the petitioner deposited the whole of the decree amount into Court on 26th April, 1975. On 18th June, 1973. In E.A. No 1739 of 1972 filed by the petitioner for set-ting aside the sale of the B schedule property, the court directed the petitioner to depo-sit the entire decree amount in O.S.No. 318 of 1966 and accordingly the petitioner deposited the whole of the decree amount into Court on 26th April, 1975. In view of the compliance of the direction by the Court, the executing court in E.A.No. 1739 of 1972 set aside the sale of B schedule property. This order was passed on 30th April, 1975. Subsequent to these proceedings, the petitioner filed R.E.A.No. 126 of 1976 in R.E.P.No. 56 of 1972 for setting aside the sale of the A schedule property also. This petition was filed on 21st October, 1975. On 4th March, 1977 the Subordinate Judge, Salem who heard the R.E.A. No. 126 of 1976 dismissed the petition on the ground that it is hopelessly barred by limitation. It is against this order, the present C.R.P. has been filed. 4. Mr. M.N. Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Article applicable to the present case is Article 181 of the old Limitation Act corresponding to Article 137 of the present Limitation Act. Mr. M N. Padmanabhan, submitted that the Court below has wrongly applied Article 127 of the present Limitation Act corresponding to Article 166 of the old Limitation Act and has dismissed the petition. Article 127 reads as follows: --- “To set aside a sale in execution of a decree including any such application by a judgment-debtor --- Sixty days from the date of the sale.” Article 137 reads as follows: “Any other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this division --- Three years --- when the right to apply accrues.” If it is a question of applying Article 127, the date of sale in this case being 22nd March, 1973, the application R.E.A, No 126 of 1976 filed on 21st October, 1975 will be hopelessly barred by limitation. If on the other hand Article 137 is attracted to the facts of the present case as submitted by Mr. M. Padmanabhan, the petitioner will be in time in filing such an application. Mr. If on the other hand Article 137 is attracted to the facts of the present case as submitted by Mr. M. Padmanabhan, the petitioner will be in time in filing such an application. Mr. R. Vedantham, learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the present application filed by the petitioner is to set aside the sale in execution, and as such, only Article 127 is attracted. According to Mr. Padmanabhan, the sale having been held without notice to the petitioner herein, it is void and as such the relevant article that is applicable to the facts of the present case isArticle 37. No doubt, Mr. Vedantham points to section 28 (6) of the Provincial Insolvency Act and states that the notice is not necessary to the petitioner who is a purchaser in the auction held by the receiver in the insolvency proceedings. Section 28 (6) of the said Act reads as follows: --- “Nothing in this section shall affect the power of any secured creditor to realise or otherwise deal with his security, in the same manner as he would have been entitled to realise or deal with it if this section had not been passed.” Order 21 , rule 22. Civil Procedure Code, reads as follows: ‘‘Order 21 , rule 22: Notice to show cause against Execution in certain cases. --- (1) Where an application for execution is made --- ( a) more than two years after the date of the decree, or ( b) and (c) …………….the Court executing the decree shall issue a notice to the person against whom execution is applied for requiring him to show cause, on a date to be fixed, why the decree should not be executed against him.” 5. There is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner herein is the purchaser of the equity of redemption. No doubt, the purchase is in pursuance of the auction held by the receiver who is administering the estate of the third respondent in the insolvency proceedings. How far such a person is entitled to have a notice under Order 21 , rule 22 , Civil Procedure Code, in the light of the above said section 28 of the Provincial Insolvency Act is a matter to be decided after appreciating the facts in this case. How far such a person is entitled to have a notice under Order 21 , rule 22 , Civil Procedure Code, in the light of the above said section 28 of the Provincial Insolvency Act is a matter to be decided after appreciating the facts in this case. The trial Court has failed to consider as to whether the notice under Order 21 , rule 22, Civil Procedure Code at all is necessary in this case and as to whether the sale without notice to the petitioner will make the sale itself ab initio void as far as the petitioner is concerned. 6. In A.P.V. Rajendran v. S. A. Soundara—jan1 a Full Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the void and voidable nature of a sale in execution proceedings. The court observed that if the sale is claimed to be void for certain illegality or voidable on ground of material irregularities not referred to in Order 21 , rule 90 , then section 47 has to be invoked and in such cases, Order 21 , rule 90, Civil, Procedure Code, cannot come to play at all. The Full Bench further held that according to the Supreme Court, though the settlement of the sale proclamation presented the publication and conduct of the sale, in so far as the irregularity in the settlement of sale proclamation relates to the essential steps to be taken by the court in the matter of publishing and conducting the sale, it has to be taken as an irregularity in the publication itself. In Natarajan v. Chandull Amarchand1 a Division Bench of this Court dealing with the question of notice and the applicability of the Limitation Act in execution proceedings observed that as Order 21 , rule 90 would apply only where a sale is sought to be set aside on the ground of material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it and the want of notice under Order 21 , rule 64 or66 is a stage anterior to the publication of the proclamation of sale under rule 67 or conducting the sale it will not fall under Order 21 , rule 90 , and the application would fall under section 47 , C.P.C. and the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 corresponding to Article 137 of the new Limitation Act, 1963. The Bench also held that where an application does not fall under Order 21 , rule 90, it is not necessary for the applicants to show that they sustained a substantial injury by reason of the non-observance of the prescribed procedure. Mr. M.N. Padmanabhan also relied on the decision in Rajagopala Iyer v. Ramaunjachariar2 in support of his contention. 7. In contrast to these decisions, Mr. Vedan-tham submits that there are decisions to bold that a purchaser in insolvency proceedings need not be made a party, nor he is entitled to notice in as much as the Official Receiver has been made as a party respondent to the R.E.A. No. 126 of 1976. The learned counsel further submits that on the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner had notice and as such the petition is wholly barred by limitation. The trial court has not adverted to any of these facts except coming to the conclusion that the petition is barred by limitation since it has been filed thirty days after the date of confirmation of the sale. As the law stands today, the period of limitation is sixty days from the date of sale and not from the, date of confirmation of the sale. 8. The order of the court below lacks all these details and it is the duty of the court below to find out as to whether notice is necessary for the petitioner and as to whether the petitioner will have the benefit of Article 127 or 137 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. Hence all the findings of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge made in R.E.A No. 126 of 1976 are vacated. The civil revision petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the file of the Subordinate Judge Salem for fresh disposal bearing in mind the observations made above No costs. Petition allowed.