Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. The plaintiff brought the suit to enforce two mortgages which he alleged were executed by the 1st defendant in favour of certain third parties from whom he obtained assignments of those mortgages. The 1st defendant filed a written statement denying that any part of the sum of Rs. 31,921-7-8 for the recovery of which the suit was filed was due and making various charges of gross fraud against the plaintiff. On the 6th August, 1921, the case came on for hearing when the 1st defendants vakil applied for an adjournment on certain grounds to which we shall presently refer, but the adjournment was refused. The vakil then said he had no instructions and the Subordinate Judge passed an ex par( decree for the sum claimed against the 1st defendant. We are not concerned with the other defendants but we may mention that the 2nd and 3rd defendants were impleaded as subsequent mortgagees and that the 9th defendant obtained an assignment subsequent to the suit of the 2nd defendants mortgage. The 1st defendant has filed this appeal.

2. Mr. T. M. Krishnaswami Aiyar, the vakil for the plaintiff-respondent, has taken an objection in limine to the maintainability of the a