( 1 ) ON 1-8-1928, some trees standing on a plot of land, described as a Tank, and house with trees, were mortgaged to Makhdoom to secure the repayment of a loan of Rs. 175. The mtgee. sued to enforce his mtge. and obtained a preliminary decree on 24-10-1934. This decree directed that, unless the entire sum due under the mtge. was paid by 24-4-1935, the mortgaged property (which is fully described in the Schedule) or a sufficient portion of it be sold. It further provided : " (3) That if the net proceeds of the sale are insufficient to pay such amount and such subsequent interest and costs in full, the pltf shall be at liberty to apply for a personal decree for the amount of the Balance. "

( 2 ) THIS decree was made final on 6-3-1938, and the first appln. for execution was made by the decree-holder on 10-12-1940. On 21-1-1941, this appln. was consigned to the records. A second appln. for execution was made on 11-3-1943. An objection was then taken on 16-4-1943, by the judgment-debtors that they were agriculturists and that accordingly the decree should be amended by reducing interest. This appln. was allowed and the decretal amount was reduced to Rs. 175. Thereafter the execution appln. was consigned to the records.

( 3 ) ON 15-9-1944 a third appln. was made for execution of the decree. On 5-5-1944, the judgment-debtors objected that they were agriculturists and that by reason of the provisions of the u. P. Debt Redemption Act, the trees, which are scattered trees and not a grove, could not be sold and the house could not be sold because it was the residential house of an agriculturist used for agricultural purposes.

( 4 ) THE Ct. , after hearing arguments, allowed these objections. It held that Section 22, Debt redemption Act, prohibited the sale of scattered trees and that Section 60, C. P. C. , prohibited the sale of the house which. was admittedly the residential house of an agriculturist.

( 5 ) THE decree-holder submitted to this order and applied on 14-7-1944 for a personal decree under order 34, Rule 6, C. P. C. There were some defects in this appln. and since they were not removed by the appct. who absented himself, the appln. was dismissed on 14-8-1944.

( 6 ) ON 12-10-1944, a second appln. was made under Order 34, Rule 6, C. P. C. Office reported that this appln. was defective and it pointed out the defects, including the failure of the appcts. to file a copy of the decree. Eventually on 13-2-1945 a report was submitted that the appct. had not till then turned up to correct the mistakes.

( 7 ) ON 23-2-1945, the decree-holder applied that he did not desire to proceed with the appln. and prayed that it might be returned to him for correction. It seems that the Ct. overlooked this appln. and ordered on 2-3-1945, "no personal decree can be granted, Rejected. " Thereafter on 15-3-1945, it passed an order on the appln. for the withdrawal that the decree-holder should be informed that his appln. for a personal decree had already been dismissed.

( 8 ) ON 12-9-1945, the decree-holder filed a third appln. under Order 34, Rule 6, C. P. C. It was pointed out that, on an objection by the judgment-debtor, it had been held that the trees were not saleable by reason of Section 22 of Act XIII [13] of 1940 and that the house could not be sold by reason of Section 60, C. P. C. , that there was no other mortgaged property and that the judgment-debtor had a considerable amount of other property. It was accordingly prayed that a personal decree be passed.

( 9 ) WHILE this appln. was still pending, the decree-holder made an appln. under Section 151, C. P. C. , in which he stated all the facts and prayed that, even if Order 34, Rule 6, C. P. C. , was inapplicable a personal decree be granted. After the filing of this appln. , the appln. under Order 34, Rule 6, C. P. C. , seems not to have been pursued further and it was allowed to remain without orders.

( 10 ) THE learned Munsif held that since the decree-holder had not appealed ag