JUDGMENT

Pramada Charan Banerji and Gokul Prasad, JJ. - This appeal arises out of an application for a final decree in a mortgage suit. The application which is now the subject matter of controversy was presented on the 12th of June, 1917. The question is whether this application was time-barred. The preliminary decree in the suit was made on the 30th of April, 1912. The suit was brought to enforce a mortgage against some of the properties comprised in the mortgage, on the ground that the other properties had been purchased by the mortgagees themselves. The court in making its decree declared the liability of each of the properties against which the mortgage was sought to be enforce and it also declared in its decree that each of those properties would be liable for a proportionate part of the amount found to be due upon the mortgage. Those amounts were specified in the decree and the property which was to be liable for those amounts was also specified. Six months were granted to the mortgagors for payment of those amounts. There was a further provision in the decree that the decree-holders would not be entitled to bring the property to sale unless they paid the amount of a prior mortgage. The decree, however, did not fix any time within which the amount last mentioned was to be paid. It may be noted that the suit was brought upon a copy of the original mortgage, which was alleged to have been lost. Three of the defendants appealed against this decree and their contention was that the loss of the original had not been accounted for and that the debt had been discharged. This appeal was preferred only in respect of the amount which the three appellants had been ordered to pay on account of the ownership of the property which was held to be liable for that amount. The appellate court, which was the High Court, held that the loss of the original had not been accounted for and that the suit was therefore not maintainable, and on this ground dismissed the suit as against the appellants. As against the other defendants to the suit, who were no parties to the appeal to the High Court and who themselves had preferred no appeal, the High Court made no order. The decree of the High Court was passed on the 6th of July, 1914. An application for a final decree was made on the 7th of April, 1915, by all the decree-holders except the Court of Wards. The Court of Wards, however, was named as an opposite party to the application. That application was dismissed for default and subsequent applications made with the object of having the application of the 7th of April 1915, restored and revived were also dismissed. After these proceedings had taken place the present application of the 12th of June, 1917, was presented by all the decree-holders. The court below has dismissed the application and we have to consider whether the decision of that court is right. It is not disputed that the limitation applicable to an application of this kind is that provided by Article 181 of the first schedule to the Limitation Act, and the period of limitation is three years from the date on which the right to apply accrued. We have therefore, to determine when the right of the present decree-holders to make an application for a final decree in the cause arose. It may be taken as settled law that the right to apply for a final decree accrued to the decree-holders when the preliminary decree became conclusive between the parties. We have, therefore, to consider in this case when the decree of the court of first instance became conclusive as between the decree-holders and the judgment-debtors against whom the present application has been made. It is contended that the preliminary decree could not have become final as between the parties to the present appeal until the decision of the High Court in the appeal which was preferred by the three judgment-debtors who obtained a decree in the High Court. This contention is based mainly upon the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 3