( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from an order of remand passed by the Civil Judge, Hardo. It appears that a suit for recovery of money and for foreclosure was instituted against two persons Nathu Lal and munnu Lal on the basis of a mortgage deed dated 23-9-1948 -- executed by both of them. A preliminary decree was passed with the consent of the defendants on 7-12-1949 with six months time for payment. An application for the passing of a final decree for foreclosure was then made on 8-7-1950 and notices were issued to the two judgment-debtors Nathu Lal and Munnu Lal. Nathu Lal was served personally but the summons for Munnu Lal was presumably taken by Nathu Lal, Nobody turned up on the date of the hearing and a final decree for foreclosure was passed on 2-9-1950.

( 2 ) MUNNU Lal made an application on 31-10-1950 for the setting aside of the final decree on the ground that he had no notice of the passing of final decree which was ex parte against him. The application made by Munnu Lal was, however, dismissed by the learned Munsif of Hardoi on the ground that Munnu Lal and Nathu Lal had lost their interest in the property on account of the sale deed executed by them on 25-10-1950 and as such they had no right to maintain the application under Order 9 Rule 13, C. P. C. The learned Munsif also held that a notice of an application for a final decree was not necessary. Munnu Lal then went up in appeal and the appellate court came to the conclusion that a notice was necessary and as the question as to whether a notice was served on Munnu Lal or not or whether he had knowledge of the application for the passing of a final decree had not been decided by the learned Munsif he ordered the case to go back to the Munsif for a finding on that point. Baljit Singh and Hanuman Prasad have now come up in appeal against this order of remand. The only point which arises for determination in this appeal is whether a notice of an application for the passing of a final decree for foreclosure was necessary. There is no express provision in order 34 Rule 3, C. P. C. for the issue of a notice to the defendant and it has been urged that no notice was therefore necessary in this case. The view taken by the various High Courts in their pronouncements is not uniform but before the reported cases on this point are examined it is necessary to indicate the change made in the wording of Order 34 Rule 3, C. P. C. , in 1929. Before the amendment which was made by the transfer of Property (amendment) Supplementary Act, 1929, the relevant part of Order 34, Rule 3, stood as follows:

"where such payment is not so made, the Court shall, on application made in that behalf by the plaintiff, pass a decree that the defendant and all persons claiming through or under him be debarred from all right to redeem the mortgaged property and also if necessary, ordering the defendant to put the plaintiff in possession of the property; provided that the Court may, upon good cause shown and upon such terms (if any) as it thinks fit, from time to time postpone the day fixed for such payment. "

Order 34 Rule 3 stood as follows after the amend ment in 1929:"where, before a final decree debarring the defendant from all right to redeem the mortgaged property has been passed the defendant makes payment into Court of all amounts due from him under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2, the Court shall, on application made by the defendant in this behalf pass a final decree. "

It would appear from the wording of Order 34 Rule 3 as it stood before the amendment made in 1929, that a judgment-debtor was not entitled to pay the decretal amount after the expiry of the period granted for the payment. No doubt he had a right to apply for enlargement of time but in either case he knew the date by which he had to make the payment in order to save his property. The view taken by the courts before the amendment, was, that no notice was necessary as it would not make any difference if the judgment-debtor was i