Modi, J.—This is an appeal by the defendant Ratanlal in a suit for redemption of mortgage. Ratanlal died during the pendency of the appeal and he is represented by his son Amar Singh.

The respondents, who were plaintiffs in the trial court, brought the suit on the allegations that Mst. Parwati, the widow of Bherondas had mortgaged the suit house with Ratanlal for Rs. 801/- on Svt.1974 Pos Sudi 7, and further sum of Rs. 199/- was borrowed by her from the mortgagee. The plaintiffs case further was that Mst. Parwatis husband Bherondas was the great grandson of Naraindas and that the plaintiffs were the descendants of Harakchand and Moolchand, being their sons and grandsons and that Harakchand and Mool Chand were the grandsons of Naraindas and they were, therefore, the next reversioners of Mst. Parwati and as such were entitled to bring a suit for redemption of the suit property. The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendant Ratanlal had assigned his rights to one Anraj, defendant No. 2 on the 23rd of February, 1931, and had made over possession of the suit house to the latter along with the relevant document. The plaintiffs, therefore, prayed that redemption be allowed to them on payment of Rs. 1001/- to whichever of the defendants was entitled to receive the said amount. Anraj is said to have died during the pendency of the first appeal in the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Jodhpur and was represented in this appeal by respondent No. 14 Banraj. Banraj also died during the pendency of this appeal and I am informed that the appellant has not brought his legal representative or representatives on this record inasmuch as when Anraj was examined in the trial court, he had stated that he had nothing 13 do with the suit house and he had transferred it back to Ratanlal. The suit was resisted by Ratanlal whose main plea was that his wife Mst. Rupali was the daughter of the deceased Bherondas, husband of Mst. Parwati, mortgagor and that after Mst. Parwatis death, she was the next heir entitled to Mst. Parwatis property and as such she (i.e. Mst. Roopali) had redeemed the mortgage from himself and, therefore, Mst. Rupali was the owner in possession of the same in her own right. It may further be pointed out that in his written-statement Ratanlal did not admit the pedigree-table filed by the plaintiffs showing their relationship to the deceased Bherondas and put the plaintiffs to proof thereof. What transpired at the trial was that the court wanted Ratanlal to produce certain documents relating to the suit mortgage and the latter failed to produce them, whereupon by its order dated the 8th of September, 1919, the trial court struck off Ratanlals defence and proceeded with the trial on that footing. Eventually, the trial court passed a decree for redemption against Ratanlal in favour of the plaintiffs respondents on payment of Rs. 1001/- by the plaintiffs to him. The defendant then went up in appeal to the District Judge, Jodhpur, from whose court the appeal was transferred to the court of the Senior Civil Judge who finally disposed of it. This appeal was dismissed on two grounds : first that the defendants appeal was barred by time; and secondly, that the order of the trial court striking off Ratanlals defence being an order passed under O. XI, R. 21 of the Civil Procedure Code was appealable under O. XLIII, R, 1 clause (f), and, as no appeal therefrom had been filed, that order had become final ; and consequently, it was not capable of being challenged in an appeal from the final decree. It is from this judgment and decree that the present appeal has been filed.

2. The first question which arises for determination in this appeal is whether the learned Judge of the lower appellate court was right in dismissing the defendants appeal as barred by time. The relevant facts and dates in this connection are these. The trial court passed its decree on the the 21st of November, 1950. The date fixed for supply of the necessary copies was 26th of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document