A fresh preliminary decree passed pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court and the High Court is not the decree of the Supreme Court and, therefore, cannot be amended under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Judgement

SUBBA RAO, J. : This appeal arises out of the fresh preliminary decree dated May 24 1961, made by the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer, pursuant to the directions given by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 383 of 1956 and by the High Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 181 of 1956.

2. It will be recalled from the facts narrated in (Gyarsi Bai v. Dhansukh Lal) Civil Appeal No. 257 of 1968* in which we have just delivered judgment that the Senior Subordinate Judge, Ajmer, in making the preliminary decree disallowed interest to the appellants from September 14, to March 13, 1950, on the mortgage of Rs. 25,000. The appellants preferred Civil Appeal No. 71 of 1953 against the said decree in so far as it disallowed the said interest to 1936 the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer, and the respondents filed cross-objections against that part of the decree awarding costs against them. On August 25, 1954, both the appeal filed by the appellants and the cross-objections filed by the respondents were dismissed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer Against the decree of the Judicial Commissioner dismissing Civil Appeal No. 71 of l953. the appellants, by special leave, preferred an appeal to this Court. On December l6, 1960 , this Court allowed the appeal, and directed the Trial Court to pass a fresh preliminary decree by adding the amount of interest accrued due prior to March 13, 1950. This Court further directed that "in the light of this judgment a fresh preliminary decree in the appropriate form will be passed and the usual period of redemption will be given under the Code . After this Court disposed of the appeal the Rajasthan High Court also allowed the revision petition filed by the appellants against the order of the Subordinate Judge. Ajmer refusing to amend the preliminary decree framed by his predecessor; the, High Court directed the Subordinate Judge to incorporate a direction in the fresh preliminary decree directing the appellants to account for the rents and profits received by them from the mortgaged properties pursuant to the direction given by this Court. The proceedings came up before the Senior Civil Judge. Ajmer for passing a fresh preliminary decree pursuant to the directions given both by the SC and by the High Court. Elaborate arguments were advanced before the learned Civil Judge on behalf of both the parties as regards the credit and debit item, that should be taken into consideration in passing the preliminary decree having regard to the directions given by the said two Courts. The learned Civil Judge broadly held that, having regard to the judgment of this Court the appellants would be entitled to get interest accrued prior to March 13, 1950; but even so they would not be entitled to an amount higher than that claimed in the plaint. Having regard to the directions given by the High Court, he held that the appellants were liable to furnish accounts of the receipts of the mortgaged properties from August 10, 1950, the date of the firing of the suit, till they handed over possession of the mortgaged properties to the respondents. He further held that the appellants would be entitled only to interest on the principal amount of Rs. 30,000 at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till August 17, 1953, and made it conditional on their furnishing the said account of the receipts of the usufruct of the mortgaged properties. Pursuant to that order a preliminay decree was made carrying out the directions given in the judgment. The plaintiffs-appellants did not file any appeal against the said preliminary decree; but instead they filed an application in the said Court for amending the decree. It was contended before the learned Civil judge that the SC amended the previous preliminary decree only in regard to interest that accrued before March 13, 1950, and therefore the fresh preliminary decree in giving the other aforesaid directions to the detriment of the appellants was not in conformity with the judgment of