The High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for final decree in a mortgage redemption suit after the preliminary decree was passed by a Division Bench of the High Court.

( 1 ) THIS Regular First Appeal under section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, (herein to be called the Act ) has been filed against the judgment dated 26th March, 1974, passed by a learned Single Judge passing final decree for redemption of the suit property in favour of the respondents.

( 2 ) RELEVANT facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under. One Bakshi Mohan Lal Sason, husban of Sarswati Devi, was the owner of property bearing No. 13, Keeling Road, New Delhi. Mohan Lal in his life time created a mortgage in respect of this property in favour of the appellant by deed dated May 31, 1966 in lieu of the sum of Rs. 70,000 that he borrowed from him. The deceased had earlier created two mortgages against the property in favour of two other persons, namely, Smt. Lajya Wati and Malwa Dcvi with which mortgages we arc not concerned in this appeal. Failing to get the property redeemed because of the stand of the appellant that the (Mohan Lal Sason) having not paid the debt within four years from the date of execution of the mortgage deed the transfer made in favour of the appellant had become an absolute sale in his favour, the mortgager filed suit No. 65 of 1961 (Mohan Lal Sason v. Gulab Chand Sharma) for redemption of the suit property alleging that he had approached the appellant to take the mortgage money and get the properly redeemed but the appellant refused to receive the money and released the mortgage. The appellant resisted the suit, among others, on the ground that the mortgage stood converted into a sale on the failure of Mohan Lal Sason to redeem the property within the period of four years from the date of the mortgage deed. The appellant during the pendency of the above suit, filed a suit (No. 154 of 1961 Gulab Chand Sharma v. Mohan Lal Sason) for the grant of permanent injunction restraining Mohan Lal Sason from alienating or in any manner dealing with the property, the subject-matter of the mortgage.

( 3 ) THE two suits were tried together and by a common judgment dated 30th January, 1962, Shri B. K. Agnihotri, Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dismissed the suit (No. 65 of 1961) filed by Mohan Lal Sason and decreed the suit (No. 154 of 1961) filed by the appellant, passing a decree for permanent injunction against Mohan Lal Sason restraining him from alienating the suit property or in any manner dealing with it. Feeling dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree, Mohan Lal filed appeals (No. 116-D of 1962 and 157-D of 1963) in the erstwhile Punjab High Court. During the pendency of those appeals Mohan Lal Sason died and he was represented by Smt. Saraswati Devi, his widow. The appeal was heard by a Bench of this Court. The Bench by its judgment and decree dated 4th August, 1972, allowed appeal No. 116-D of 1962 and passed a preliminary decree for redemption of the suit property on payment of Rs. 70. 000. The amount was to be deposited within six months. In the result, the other appeal No. 157-D of 1963 arising out of the suit filed by the appellant was also allowed and his suit for injunction was dismissed.

( 4 ) THE respondent Saraswati Devi in January, 1973 pursuant to the aforesaid decree of the Division Bench filed an application (I. A. No. 469 of 1973) under Order 34 Rules 7 and 8 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (herein called the Code ) stating that She had deposited the sum of Rs. 70,000 in the Court in terms of the decree: that she consequently is entitled to receive back the title deeds of the mortgaged property and the possession from the appellant and that she could seek the said relief from this Court in pursuance of the provisions of section 5 (2) and section 16 of the Act. The appellant resisted the application on a host of grounds which need not be recapitulated as they are not relevant for the purpose of the disposal of this appeal. An objection, however, was raised regarding the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the application on the grou