JUDGMENT

1. This is a defendants' appeal which has arisen out of a mortgage suit on an application by the decree-holder for a final decree. The facts are as follows :

Two persons, Hari Singh and Sahib Singh' on the 22nd of June 1871 created a simple mortgage over the property in suit in favour of one Sujan Singh (not the present respondent). On the 17th of March 1876 they created another simple mortgage on the property in favour of one Lachcho. On the 27th of July 1878 Sujan Singh sued upon his mortgage without impleading Lachcho, the puisne mortgagee. The property was finally put to sale in execution of the decree and was purchased by Rudra Singh, the husband of the appellant, Musammat Nand Kunwar, in May 1892. Since then she has been in possession thereof. On the 3rd of June 1911 Musammat Bhawani, daughter of the original puisne mortgagee, and her son brought a suit on the mortgage of 1876. The plaintiff impleaded the auction-purchaser under the sale of 1892 and also the representatives of the prior mortgagees. The decree that was passed is to be found at page 2 of the appellants' book, It decreed the plaintiff's claim for Rs. 6,000 with costs and future interest and gave the mortgagors a period of six months within which to redeem the mortgage. The decree then went on to say that if they failed to do this, then the plaintiff was to pay within nine months from the date of the decree a sum of Rs. 1,000 to defendant No. 1, i.e., the widow of Rudra Singh, and Rs. 2,005.9.9 to defendants Nos. 2 to 6, representatives of the prior mortgagee, and that if he paid those sums, then the said sums were to be added to the mortgage money due to him and he would be entitled to realise the entire amount by sale of the mortgaged property, but that if the plaintiff failed to pay the said sums, he should not be entitled to have the property sold by auction.

2. An appeal was preferred to the High Court by the present appellant, Musammat Nand Kunwar. She raised two contentions. The first was that the plaintiff had failed to establish his mortgage and was not entitled to any decree. The second was that in any event the whole sum of Rs. 3,005 9.9 should have been decreed as payable to her alone and not to the defendants Nos. 2 to 6, representatives of the original prior mortgagee. The Court held on the one point against her and on the other point in her favour. It held that the total sum of Rs. 3,005.9.9 was payable to her alone and that none of it was payable to the representatives of the prior mortgagee. It will thus be seen that this Court did not on appeal in any way increase the amount which the decree holder was directed to pay into Court to the defendants in order to enable them to put the properties to sale. There was, therefore, no question of the period of nine months being extended by this Court and no order was passed by this Court in respect to the extension of time. The plaintiff, Musammat Bhawani, failed to put into Court the sum of Rs. 3,005.9.9. The High Court's decree was passed on the 12th of December 1912. On the 22nd of February 1914 Musammat Bhawani transferred her decree in favour of the present respondent, Sujan Singh. Sujan Singh made an application to have his name brought on the record but withdrew it. He finally made the application out of which this appeal has arisen on the 11th of December 1915. He asked to have his name brought upon the record as decree-holder and to have a final decree for sale prepared in his favour. He stated in his application that he was willing to pay the sum which the Court had ordered the decree-holder to pay in favour of Musammat Nand Kunwar. The lower Court gave him a fortnight within which to pay the money into Court. He paid it and on the 11th of April 1917 the Court below directed a final decree for sale to be prepared. It is from this final decree for sale that the pre-sent appeal has been preferred. It is urged that the Court below had no power whatsoever to extend the time, that Order XX