Ismail, J.- The second plaintiff in O.S. No. 635 of 1957 on the file of the Court of the principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram who lost before the Courts below, is the appellant herein. The suit was instituted by the predecessor-in-trest of the appellant herein and during the pendency of the suit, he having died, the appellant herein was brought on record as his legal representative and as the second plaintiff to prosecute the suit. The suit was to enforce a mortgage and a preliminary decree was passed on 30th January, 1958. Thereafter, in 1969, the appellant filed I.A. No. 126 of 1969 pur-Porting to be under Order 34, rule 5 of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure for passing a final decree for the sale of the property. Admittedly, the amount decreed had not been paid by the respondents herein. The respondents put forward the contention that, since the preliminary decree was passed on 30th January, 1958 and since the application in I.A. No. 126 of 1969 was filed after the expiry of 3 years from the date of the decree, the said application was barred by limitation. The courts below accept-ed this contention of the respondents herein and dismissed the application filed by the appellant. Hence the present second appeal by the applicant in I. A. No. 126 of 1969 who was the second plaintiff in O.S. No. 635 of 1957.

2. The only question for consideration is whether the said I.A. filed by the appellant herein can be said to be barred by limitation.

3. Admittedly, in this case the prelimi" nary decree, dated 30th January, 1958 was not passed in accordance with the provisions contained in Order 34, of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 34 of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure deals with suits relating to mortgages of immovable properties. That order covers all types of suits in relation to a mortgage, such as, a suit by the mortgagee for recovery of the money or for sale of the property or for foreclosure. Equally, it deals with a suit by the mortgagor for redemption. In different rules of that Order specific provisions have been made as to the manner in which a suit on a mortgage can be disposed of depending upon the question whether the suit was for an enforcement of a mortgage by way of foreclosure or sale or whether it was a suit for redemption by the. mortgagor. All that is necessary for the purpose of the present second appeal is to point out that the said Order contemplates the disposal of the suit in two stages by passing a preliminary decree in the first instance and passing a final decree ultimately. With regard to each one of the types of the suits referred to already, the Order itself indicates what should be the contents of the preliminary decree as well as the final decree. As far as the present case is concerned, we are concerned with a suit for the enforcement of a mortgage by the sale of the mortgaged property. Order 34, rule 4 (1) dealing with a preliminary decree in a suit for sale states that the Court shall pass a preliminary decree to the effect mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) (i) of sub-rule (1) of rule 2, and further directs that, in default of the defendant paying as therein mentioned, the plaintiff shall be entitled to apply for a final decree directing that the mortgaged property or a sufficient part thereof be sold, and the proceeds of the sale, after deduction there from of the expenses of the sale, be paid into Court and applied in payment of what has been found or declared under or by the preliminary decree due to the plaintiff, together with such amount as may have been adjudged due in respect of subsequent costs, charges, expenses and interest, and the balance, if any, be paid to the defendant or other persons entitled to receive the same. Rule 2 (1) of Order 34 deals with a preliminary decree in a suit for foreclosure and states that:-

“In a suit for foreclosure, if the plaintiff succeeds, the Court shall pass a preliminary decree-

(a) orderin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document