JUDGMENT

Sundar Lal, J. - These appeals arise out of orders passed by the court below under Order XXI, Rule 18, of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that three suits were filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur to which the parties or most of them were impleaded either as plaintiffs or defendants. The first of these was filed by seven plaintiffs, viz., (1) Jamuna Prasad (2) Chunni Lal, (3) Lachmi Narain, (4) Bhagwan Das, (5) Persotam Das (6) Jairam Das and (7) Sheo Prasad against nine defendants viz.--(1) Changur Khan (2) Shoo Shankar (3) Haridas (4) Rai Rajnath (5) Bhola Nath, (6) Raghunath Das, (7) Muluk Das, (8) Rameshwar Das and (9) Jageshar Das.

2. The suit was for sale on a mortgage which the defendants pleaded was paid off and discharged.

The learned Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur dismissed the suit with costs, amounting to Rs. 365, awarded to defendants Nos. 2 to 4 and Nos. 6 to 9. The plaintiff appealed against the said decree to this Court, and on the 17th of September, 1910, the learned Chief Justice (Sir John Stanley) and Mr. Justice Banerji dismissed the appeal with costs in favour of the defendants amounting to Rs. 468-9-9, for the High Court, and affirmed the decree of the court below.

3. The second suit was by Sheo Shankar and others (the eight persons who were defendants Nos. 2 to 9 in the suit mentioned in the preceding paragraph) against Jamuna and others (the seven plaintiffs of that suit.)

4. The suit was for possession of certain properties with mesne profits. On the 6th of March, 1911, Stanley, C.J., and Banerji, J., decreed the said suit with cases and awarded future mesne profits, the amount of which was to be ascertained in the execution department. Apart from the question of mesne profits, the amount of which remains still unascertained, Sheo Shankar and others in these cases obtained against Jumna Prasad and others a decree awarding them, or some of them, costs of the suits (in the amounts as shown in these decrees.)

5. These two decrees may be described as decrees of the first set.

6. The last suit was one, instituted by Jamuna Prasad and the same seven persons, who were plaintiffs in the first mentioned suit, on foot of three mortgages, dated the 22nd of February, 1889, 30th of October, 1889, and 9th of September, 1893, for sale of the property mortgaged. The first three defendants were the heirs of the mortgagors ; the fourth defendant was a prior mortgagee. Defendants Nos. 5 to 12 were Sheo Shankar and others (who are named as defendants Nos. 2 to 9 in the suit first mentioned) who had purchased a considerable part of the mortgaged property, and who were impleaded as such purchasers. The last two defendants - (Nos. 13 and 14) were puisne mortgagees of a part of the property-mortgaged. The suit was decreed by the court of first instance on the 17th of April, 1909, and the decree was upheld by the court in appeal on the 23rd of April, 1910. The decree was for the sale of the mortgaged property. This decree has been put in execution as also the two decrees of the first set. In execution of the decrees of the first set in which the proceedings for execution were initiated by Sheo Shankar, Raghunath Das and Rameshwar Das, the property of Jamuna Das and others was attached and put up for sale.

7. Chunni Lal, Bhagwan Das and Lachmi Narain, three of the decree-holders of the decree for sale, have applied to the court below to set off the amounts of the decrees of the first set against the amount of the third decree (i.e., the decree for sale) under Rule 18, Order XXI, of the Code, and their prayer has been granted. It is against this order that the three appeals (one in the case of each decree) have been preferred. The case for the appellants is that they were made defendants to the decree for sale in their capacity as purchasers of some of the mortgaged property. They were not liable personally for the amount of the decree. They were impleaded to foreclose their right of redemption as transf