Sen, J—This order will also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 303 of 1941.

2. Mt. Krishnabai and others the judgment-debtors 1-8, have filed this revision application and Miscellaneous Appeal No. 303 of 1941, to set aside the order, dated 19th July 1941, passed by the Court of the First Additional District Judge, Nagpur, in Civil Suit No. 5 of 1932.

3. The relevant facts which have led to these proceedings are briefly these:

4. Ramchandra Gopal Bhide, his wife Mt. Jankibai and their sons Narayan and Madhao, obtained on 23rd December 1933, a preliminary decree for sale in Civil Suit No. 5 of 1932, against Bapuji, husband of Mt. Krishnabai, and the legal representatives of Tanbaji and Laxman, on the basis of the mortgage, dated 10th July 1929, executed by Bapuji and his two brothers Tanbaji and Laxman. The decree was for Rs. 69,455-0-10 with interest at 6 per cent. per annum till realisation. The date fixed for payment was 23rd June 1934. The amount now due is over Rs. 1,10,000. The property mortgaged was 16 annas of mauza Dhole Mohagaon, pargana Kelzar, Group Kaodas, with all proprietary rights excepting the cultivating rights in the sir, together with the malguzari died wada and two kothas. One of the terms of the decree was that if the money realised by the sale of the mortgaged property was not sufficient for payment in full of the amount payable to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were at liberty to apply for a personal decree against the defendants for the amount of the balance. So far as defendants 2-8 were concerned, their liability was restricted to their share in the family estate which were the assets of their father and grandfather.

5. Before the preliminary decree was passed the plaintiffs applied on 30th November 1932, for an order calling upon the judgment-debtors to furnish security to the extent of Rs. 35,000 and in case of their failure, for appointment of a Receiver, for attachment of the other property of the judgment-debtors and for an order restraining them from alienating other property, as in their estimate, the value of the property was about Rs. 35,000, and that it would be necessary for the plaintiffs to enforce a personal decree against the mortgagors for the realisation of the balance of the decretal amount. The defendants had alienated some portion of their property and the plaintiffs apprehended that the judgment-debtors might alienate other property which will have the effect of defeating or delaying the realisation of the full decretal amount from them. Nothing was done on this application as the proceedings were re-opened on an application of Shankar, one of the defendants, who had attained majority, and on account of the fact that legal representatives had to be brought on the record in place of the deceased Laxman, one of the mortgagors, who was a defendant in the case.

6. After the decree was passed on 23rd December 1933, the decree-holders renewed their application on 5th February 1934, for calling on the judgment-debtors to furnish security for rupees 35,000 and on their failure to do so, for appointment of a Receiver of the mortgaged property for collecting rents and profits during the pendency of the suit, and for an injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or otherwise disposing of their immovable property until satisfaction, and in case of their failure to furnish security, the property of the judgment-debtors was to be attached before judgment. This was the subject-matter of the inquiry. The judgment-debtors took time for a compromise and the proceedings were protracted from 5th February 1934 to 18th December 1936.

7. In the meantime, Dr. Shankar Pandurang Gogte in execution of his decree, dated 14th November 1932, in Civil Suit No. 35 of 1932, against Ramchandra Bhide and others, attached on 22nd February 1934, under Order 21, Rule 53, Civil P.C., the preliminary decree for sale, dated 23rd December 1933, which Ramchandra Bhide and others had obtained agains