The event that transfers the mortgagor's interest to the plaintiff can satisfy the plaintiff's claim and lead to the dismissal of the suit.

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 appeal. He contends that his client has become the purchaser of the 1st defendants interest in the property and that as the effect of it would be that besides being a respondent his client takes also the place of the appellant, the appeal cannot go on and, must be dismissed.

3. Before examining this contention, we shall first deal with the appeal as if no such event has taken place. The present suit was filed on the 10th of December, 1919, and during its pendency the plaintiff purchased in Court-auction held in execution of a money-decree passed against the 1st defendant, the right, title and interest of the 1st defendant in the suit properties. The purchase by him was on the 3rd March, 1921. The 1st defendant thereupon made an application to the District Munsif s Court, Kumbakonam, which held the auction, to set aside the sale on certain grounds. This application was pending on the 6th of August, 1921 when the present suit came on for hearing. The 1st defendants vakil applied for an adjournment on the ground that he was led to believe that the suit would not go on till the petition to set aside the sale was finally disposed of, that, as a matter of fact, the application before the District Munsif s Court came on for hearing on the 3rd of August, 1921, but was adjourned to the 31st of August in order that the parities might take the necessary steps to get the application transferred to the Sub-Court, Kumbakonam, so. that the suit and the application might be heard together and that for these reasons his client who was ready to proceed with the suit on previous occasions had not taken the necessary steps to be ready with her evidence on that day. The 1st defendant was not in Court, the Judge refused . the application for adjournment and passed an ex parte decree. The 1st defendant thereupon made an application to set aside the ex parte decree. That application was again refused. The 1st defendant has not only filed an appeal against the decree itself (Appeal No, 348 of 1921), but she has also filed an appeal against the order refusing to set aside the ex parte decree (A. A. O. No. 137 of 1922). We are clearly of the opinion that the Subordinate Judge ought to have granted the adjournment prayed for. The vakil for the plaintiff as well as the vakil for the 1st defendant gave evidence when the application to set aside the ex parte decree was heard and the 1st defendants vakil deposed that the vakil for the plaintiff had represented to the Court at a previous hearing that the suit might be adjourned pending the disposal of the execution application in the District Munsifs Court. This statement was no doubt denied by the plaintiffs vakil. But without deciding which of the two conflicting versions is correct, we are satisfied that the defendants vakil bona f