Untwalia, J.

1. This is a miscellaneous first appeal by one of the judgment debtors. It appears that he was the main judgment debtor. His name is Sri Chhatu Ram Bhadani. His son, respondent No. 2, is also a judgment debtor. An equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds was created by Sri Chhatu Ram Bhadani in favour of an Insurance Company, predecessor-in-interest of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter called the Corporation), decree holder respondent No. 1. A suit for enforcement of the mortgage and for a decree for sale was filed in the Bombay High Court on its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction". A preliminary mortgage decree was passed on 21-7-1959. A final decree followed on 19-12-1960. It may be stated here that the defendants in the mortgage action had appeared to contest the suit, taken all sorts of pleas to save the property or a portion of it. but their objections were overruled, as would appear from the order under appeal.

2. Since the final mortgage decree passed by the Bombay High Court had directed sale of the property on failure of the judgment debtors to pay the decretal dues, procedure prescribed under Chapter XXVTI, Part TJ of the Rules and Forms of the Bombay High Court on the Original Side in its several jurisdiction (hereinafter called the Rules) followed. The property is situated in the district of Hazaribagh in Bihar within the jurisdiction of the Hazaribagh Court, Property was sold in accordance with the Rules of Chapter XXVIT by the Commissioner for taking Accounts on 11-5-1966. The decree holder Corporation purchased the property. On adjustment of the amount for which the property was sold with the portion of the decretal dues and after following the further procedure prescribed in Chapter XXVTT of the Rules the sale was confirmed on 12-8-1966 by an order of the Bombay High Court. Order confirming the sale and the certificate of sale was issued. The purchaser, namely, the Corporation became entitled to prorped to obtain possession of the property purchased by it in like manner as the purchaser of immovable property sold in execution under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the Code), as per Rule 540 of the Rules contained in Chapter XXVII.

3. The order confirming the sale made by the Bombay High Court was transferred for execution in accordance with the provisions of the Code by the Bombay High Court to the District Judge. Hazaribagh, who in his turn transferred it to the Subordinate Judges Court at Hazaribagh. When the Subordinate Judge proceeded to effect delivery of possession various objections were raised on behalf of the judgment debtors. Many of the objections raised on their behalf were the very same objections which had been taken at earlier stages in the Bombay High Court. They were therefore, rightly, not entertained by the execution Court at Hazaribagh, and nothing substantial in that behalf could be urged by the appellant in this Court.

4. But the question of importance with which there is no familiarity in Bihar was as to how after the passing of the final mortgage decree only sale could take place in the Bombay High Court and thereafter the order confirming the sale could be transferred to the Hazaribagh Court in accordance with Sec.39 and Order 21, Rule 5 of the Code for merely effecting delivery of possession by process of execution. In Bihar, the well-known process is to put a decree for sale passed in a mortgage action in execution and in the execution case the property is sold; of course, there is no question or necessity of attaching such a property as in a money decree execution, and after sale steps for delivery of possession in accordance with the rules engrafted in Order 21 of the Code are taken. We were, therefore, constrained to adjourn the hearing of this appeal on the last two occasions in order to get proper light and assistance from learned Counsel for the parties on this question with which we were ourselves no