JUDGMENT

Sulaiman, J. - A preliminary object the hearing of the appeal has been raised on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents. It is necessary to give the acts briefly in order to consider that objection.

2. The appeal arises out of a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage dead of 1913 against the representatives of the mortgagors and subsequent mortgagees and transferees. The defendants were Kanhaiya Lal, a mortgagee of 1924, and Dr. Gopi Nath, who had purchased part of the property in execution of a simple money decree. Kanhaiya Lal and Gopi Nath both contested the suit in the Court below but the other defendants did not. The suit was decreed. An appeal was filed by Dr. Gopi Nath alone in this High Court against the whole decree, impleading Kanhaiya Lal and the other persons as pro forma respondents.

3. During the pendency of the appeal Kanhaiya Lal executed his decree obtained on the basis of his own mortgage, to which however neither the present plaintiffs-respondents nor Gopi Hath was a party, and Kanhaiya Lal himself purchased the property on the 20th April 1927. Subsequently he applied to the High Court for the transference of his name from the array of the respondents to th