The Court clarified that in mortgage redemption, the obligation to deposit money begins only after a formal decree determining the amount due is made, following the correct procedural rules of Order 34, Rule 7.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1] Heard learned counsel for the Appellant(s) and learned counsel for the Respondent.

2] This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 06/05/2000 passed by the 2^nd Additional District Judge, Satara, thereby allowing Regular Civil Appeal No. 357 of 1994, which was preferred against the judgment and order dated 06/07/1994 passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Phaltan, in Decree Final Application No.205 of 1975.

3] The said 'Final Decree Application' was filed by the present Appellant for passing a decree of redemption under Order 34, Rule 8(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, “C.P.C.”).

4] It is undisputed position on record that the Appellant- Manik had filed Regular Civil Suit No.205 of 1975 against the Respondent for redemption of the mortgage of the suit land. The said suit was decreed on 26/10/1978 directing the Appellant to deposit the amount of Rs.200/- towards the mortgage money into the Court within six month from the date of the decree. As per the case of the Appellant, the preliminary decree was prepared on 27/12/1978 and the Appellant has deposited the amount of Rs.200/- into the Court on 11/06/1978. Thereafter, on 03/07/1990, he had filed the present application for passing 'Final Decree of Redemption' with a prayer for directing the Respondent to execute re-conveyance deed in his favour with further relief of possession.

5] This application came to be resisted by the Respondent contending inter-alia that he has incurred lot of expenses for levelling and developing the land. Hence, he is entitled to get those expenses.

6] The trial Court considered that these contentions were raised by the Respondent in his written statement to the suit also and they were not accepted. In view thereof, it was held by the trial Court that there remains no more legal or factual hitch to deny the relief, which the Appellant was claiming, that of execution of the deed of re- conveyance with the possession and other consequential reliefs. Accordingly, the trial Court allowed the Final Decree Application.

7] This order of the trial Court was challenged by the Respondent in the First Appeal and for the first time, it was contended therein that the amount of Rs.200/- was required to be deposited in the Court within six months from the date of the decree and as the judgment in the case was pronounced and signed on 26/10/1978, it has to be held under the provisions of Order 20, Rule 7 C.P.C. that the decree is also of the same date of 26/10/1978. As the amount was not deposited within six months there from and no application was also filed for extension of the period, the application filed for 'Final Decree' is not within time and hence, barred by law. This contention of the Respondent was accepted by the First Appellate Court and it has reversed the order passed by the trial Court, thereby rejecting the application for Final Decree, which was filed by the Appellant.

8] Being aggrieved by this order, the instant Second Appeal is preferred, which is admitted on ground Nos.(i), (ii) and (iii). In the course of final hearing of the Appeal, learned counsel for the Appellant has pressed into submission ground No.(iv) as stated in the 'Appeal Memo', on which both the parties are heard at length. These four grounds are as follows:-

“(i) What is a starting point of the limitation stipulated in the terms of the preliminary decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Phaltan, under O.34, R.7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the purpose of deposit of the mortgage money in the Court?

(ii) Whether the Appellate Court has committed a gross error of law by not applying the provisions of O.34 R.7 (1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure to the Appellant-Plaintiff's case for the purpose of deposit of the mortgage money?

(iii) Whether the Appellant-Plaintiff's case falls within the purview of the Provisions of O.34, R.7(1) (a) (ii) R/w. O.34 R.7 (1) (c) (i) of C.P.C. and therefore, period of six