JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal against the final decree in a mortgage suit for sale. The decree has been assaled on the ground that it was made on the basis of an applicat on under Order XXXIV, Rule 5, Sub-rule (ii), of the CPC which was presented after the lapse of the prescribed time. To test the validity of this argument, it is necessary to refer to the salient facts in this case. The prelminary decree was made on the 16th July 1914 u/s 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an appeal lay against this decree. Indeed, u/s 97 if an appeal was riot preferred, the defendants would not be competent to challenge its correctness in an appeal against the final decree. An appeal was consequently lodged in this Court. The appeal was heard on the merits and the Court came to the conclusion that the decision of the Trial Court could not be successfully assailed. The result was that the decision of the Trial Court was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed with costs on the 30th May 1917. On the 24th March 1920, the present application was made under Order XXXIV, Rule 5, Sub-rule (ii), in order that a final decree might be passed. The defendants urged that the application was barred by limitation u