( 1 ) IN this second appeal 8 short but interesting question of law arises.

( 2 ) THE facts leading rise to this second appeal are briefly stated as under :the respondent No. 1 Bai Bhanumati is a second mortgagee. The respondent No. 2 Harjivan is an original mortgagor a judgment-debtor One Damodar Chattrabhuj was a first mortgagee. He had filed a Civil suit No. 46 of 1960 against the respondent No. 2 Harjivan for recovery of his mortgage dues and he had obtained a decree for recovery of his dues for the sale of the mortgaged property. The respondent No. 1 Bai Bhanumati in whose favour the second mortgage was executed by the said judgment-debtor was not a party to that suit. It means that the subsequent mortgagee was not a party to the suit filed by a prior mortgagee for recovery of his mortgage dues. The aforesaid suit was filed on 26th September 1960 The said first mortgagee filed a Regular Darkhast No. 290 of 1960 to recover Rs. 7 654. 01 by a sale of the mortgaged property described in the Darkhast in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge Junior Division Rajkot on 31-12-1960. He also filed Darkhast No. 295 of 1960 in the same Court for the execution of that very decr