1. The petitioners, who were the defendants first party in a suit insti-tuted by the plaintiffs opposite party, have filed the present revision application, although the suit which was brought for the redemption of the two mortgage bonds has been "wholly dismissed" against them. The contention raised on their behalf is that the trial court should not have recorded any finding against them when it was going to dismiss the suit on the ground of its maintainability.

2. Some relevant facts may be stated. The plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No. 222 of 1968 for redemption of two mortgage bonds executed on 30-8-1930. A long written statement was filed by the petitioners and one of the pleas set up by them was that the right of redemption of the plaintiffs was extinguished on account of the sale of their holding in execution in a rent decree. An issue, namely, issue No. 4 was also framed by the trial Court to determine this point. A large number of witnesses were examined by the parties and on a consideration of their evidence, the trial Court recorded a finding that the mortgage bonds were still subsisting and that the contesting defendants were in possession over the mort-gaged