JUDGMENT - MUDHOLKAR J.:

This is a plaintiffs appeal from a final decree dismissing their suit for foreclosure.

(2) The relevant facts are as follows: One Ghasilal had obtained a mortgage of the property in suit from the defendant no. 1 Mahabir Prasad, who is now dead, and is represented before us by his legal representatives, respondents l(a) to l(f). Ghasilal was indebted to the plaintiffs and therefore he transferred his mortgagee rights in their favour. The plaintiffs thereupon instituted a suit in the Tear 1941 in the Court of the Sub-Judge First Class, Bhandara, for enforcement of their mortgage. The claim of the plaintiffs was decreed in full and a preliminary decree for Rs. 11396/8/-inclusive of costs was passed in their favour. The time for redemption expired on 12th February 1943, whereupon the plaintiffs made an application for passing a final decree) for foreclosure. Along with the application for making the decree final, an application was made by Jagdish Prasad, one of the original plaintiffs, stating that the original plaintiffs 1, 6, 9, 11 and 13 had died and that therefore their legal representatives should be brought on record. We are only concerned here with the plaintiff no. 13 Jamnalal. It was stated in that application that the plaintiff no, 13 died about a year-and-a-half prior to the date of the application. This application is dated 24-7-1945. Therefore, the averment in the application must be taken to mean that Jamnalal died in the year 1944 or so. In reply to that application, it was stated on behalf of the defendant Mahabir Prasad that the plaintiffs 1,6, 9, 11 and 13 died long ago, that the application for substitution of the legal representatives was not filed within time and that the preliminary decree had abated as a whole, or, at any rate, in so far as the interests of the deceased plaintiffs were concerned. The learned Judge held that the plaintiffs other than Jamnalal died after the passing of the preliminary decree and that therefore there was no question of abatement. He however held that Jamnalal died on 10-4-1942 but as the preliminary decree was passed on 12-6-1942, the suit had abated so far as his interest was concerned. Further the suit being a mortgage suit the fact that it had abated in so far as one of the mortgagees is concerned resulted in the abatement of the whole suit and that consequently the preliminary decree was a nullity. Eventually the learned Judge passed the -following order:

"I accordingly order that a final decree be drawn up ordering that the suit be and has abated and that the application for final decree is dismissed."

Consequent on this, a decree dismissing the suit was drawn up. It is against this decree! that the plaintiffs have come before this Court.

(3) It is contended before us on behalf of the plaintiffs that a preliminary decree having been passed in the case it could not be treated as a nullity by the Court by reason of the fact that according to the enquiry made one: of the plaintiffs was found to have died prior to the passing of the preliminary decree. It is also contended that if at all any abatement had taken place that was with regard to the interest of Jamnalal alone and would not result in the abatement of the whole suit.

(4) It has been observed by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Lachmi Narain Marwari v. Balmakund Marwari, ILR 4 Pat 61

After a decree has once been made in a suit, the suit cannot be dismissed unless the decree is reversed on appeal. The parties have, on the making of the decree, acquired rights or incurred liabilities which are fixed unless or until the decree is varied or set aside. After a decree any party can apply to have it enforced."

It has been held by their Lordships of the Privy Council in several cases as, for instance, Malkarjun Bin Shidramappa Pasare v. Narhari Bin Shivappa, (27 I A 216) that a Court has jurisdiction to decide a matter rightly or wrongly and that merely because the Court has decided a matter wrongly

Click Here to Read the rest of this document