The plaintiff's right of redemption of mortgage was upheld, and the court dismissed the second appeal and the application for reception of additional evidence.

Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2013 passed in A.S.No.409 of 2011 on the file of VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2011 passed in O.S. No.6543 of 2008, on the file of VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law.

(a) Was the appellant court right in reversing the well described judgment of trial court indicating the defendant made by the plaintiff in complying with the direction of the trial court in this suit dealt with by the appellate Court?

(b) Is nor the present suit not hit by the principles of Or.2 R.2 oc CPC in as much as the plaintiff did file the earlier suit for injunction when the cause already arisen for the relief of redemption?

3. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties lying in a narrow compass as regards the subject matter, I deem it unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail.

4. The second appeal is laid by the second defendant in the suit, who is found to be the auction purchaser.

5. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for redemption of mortgage. On the materials placed on record, it is seen that only the mortgagee, the first defendant had contested the said suit by raising various pleas. It is found that the second defendant had failed to file a written statement in the suit and accordingly he has been set ex-parte and thus it is seen that the second defendant has not contested the reliefs sought for by the plaintiff as regards the redemption of mortgage.

6. Based on the materials placed on record, no doubt, the trial court was pleased to dismiss the plaintiff's suit, however, the first appellate court, on an appreciation of the materials placed on record, found that the plaintiff had paid a huge amount towards the repayment of loan amount and also ready to pay a substantial amount of the balance due, if any, accordingly noting that the suit for redemption of the mortgage laid by the plaintiff is not hit by the law of limitation and entitled to redeem the mortgage, accordingly granted the decree of redemption of mortgage sought for by the plaintiff in the matter by passing a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff. The first defendant who had contested the plaintiff, had not preferred any challenge to the judgment and decree of the first appellate court. On the other hand, it is only the second defendant who had failed to contest the plaintiff's suit before the trial court, had chosen to prefer the second appeal.

7. When it is found that the second defendant had not put forth any plea resisting the plaintiff's case by filing a written statement, accordingly, it is seen that it is not open to the second defendant to contend in this second appeal that the suit laid by the plaintiff is hit by Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC as if the plaintiff had failed to claim the right of redemption in the earlier suit laid by him for the relief of permanent injunction. However, as rightly put forth by the plaintiff's counsel, when the second defendant had not even filed the written statement challenging the plaintiff's suit and in particular, not resisted that the suit laid by the plaintiff is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC, in the absence of pleading and materials placed by the second defendant with reference to the same and furthermore when even the first defendant, the mortgagee had not specifically pleaded in the written statement that the suit laid by the plaintiff is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC, it is seen that the substantial question of law formulated in the second appeal with reference to the same cannot be accepted in any manner and in such view of the matter, in my considered opinion, sans plea and materials placed by the second defendant that the plaintiff's suit is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC, to raise such a plea at the stage of second appeal cannot be acceded t