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 lands as mortgagees. It, however, refused to grant a decree for redemption to the plaintiffs in view of the provisions contained in S. 12 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act, 1974.

3. It is relevant to quote here S. 12 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act, 1974 (briefly the Act) which reads as follows:

"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law or anything having fee force of law or in any agreement, the principal amount and all dues in respect of an usufructuary mortgage relating to any agricultural land, whether executed before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be deemed to have been fully satisfied and the mortgage shall be deemed to have been whol-ly redeemed on expiry of a period of seven years from the date of the execu-tion of the mortgage bond ......... and the mortgagor shall be entitled to recover possession of the mortgaged land in the manner prescribed under the rules."

Rules have been also framed under the Act, and Rr. 9 and 10 prescribed the procedure for resumption of possession of fine mortgaged property by a mortgagor under S. 12 of the Act. Rule 10 provides that on the failure of the mortgagee to deliver possession of the mortgaged pro-perty to the mortgagor, on the expiry of the period of notice sent by the mortga-gor in the prescribed form, the mortgagor has to file an application in Form M. L.-5 to the Collector within whose jurisdiction the mortgaged property or any part thereof is situated, to eject the mortgagee from the mortgaged property, and the Collector has thereupon to make an order in writing to eject the mortgagee from the mortgaged property, after issuing notice to him to show cause, and put the mortgagor in possession, if in his opinion, the cause shown by the mortgagee is not satisfactory. A machinery in the nature of a conciliation proceeding has been prescribed to settle the dispute, if any, between the mortgagor and the mortgagee through a Board.

3A. The trial Court, however, held that although the mortgages were subsisting, no relief could be granted to the plaintiffs as the suit was hit by the provisions of S. 12 of the Act. It, accordingly, dismissed the suit.

4. Mr. Pradyumna Narain Singh appearing for the petitioners, as already indicated earlier, contended that the trial court should not have recorded any find-ing against the petitioners at all when it was bound to dismiss the suit on the ground of its maintainability and thereby it committed an apparent error of jurisdiction. He further contended that the finding recorded with respect to the subsistence of the mortgage bonds would ope-rate as res judicata against the petitioners who would be greatly prejudiced to dispute the said fact in any proceeding which may be taken before the Collector under the Money Lenders Act. Learned Advocate