JUDGMENT Bennet, J.
1. This is an appeal brought by the Muzaffarnagar Bank against an order in execution which directs that of two applications for sale in execution of certain house property on different decrees of different decree-holders owe sale shall be prior to the other. Objection is taken rightly that no appeal lies and we, therefore, take up the matter in revision. One of these decrees is held by the applicant before us the Muzaffarnlagar Bank and its application for execution was made on 17th May 1930. The other decree-holder Hafizuddin applied for execution under his decree on 21st November 1928. His application for execution had been prior, and it is on this basis that the learned Subordinate Judge has decided that the sale in execution of Hafiz Uddin's decree should take place first. Neither party is concerned with the decree of the other party as a party to the suits in which these decrees were passed. We consider that the principle of priority adopted by the lower court was correct. It is necessary as a physical fact that one sale should take place before the other sale, and the criterion on which execution application was made first appears to be a natural criterion to adopt. We note however that the lower court has ordered that at the sale on the decree of the Bank the amin should bring the facts of the sale in execution of Hafiz Uddin's decree to the notice of intending purchasers.
2. We consider that a similar provision should be made in the case of the gale in execution of the decree of Hafiz Uddin and accordingly we allow this application in revision to this extent that we direct that at the sale in execution of the decree of Hafiz Uddin the amin should bring to the notice of intending purchasers the fact that there is also an order for a sale in execution of the decree of the Muzaffarnagar Bank against the same property and that that sale is on a mortgage decree, otherwise the application in revision is dismissed and the parties will pay their own costs in this court.