Elaborate arguments were advanced before the learned Civil Judge on behalf of both the parties as regards the credit and debit items that should be taken into companysideration in passing the preliminary decree having regard to the directions given by the said two Courts.
both the appeal filed by the appellants and the cross objections filed by the respondents were dismissed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer.
After this Court disposed of the appeal, the Rajasthan High Court also allowed the revision petition filed by the appellants against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Ajmer, refusing to amend the preliminary decree framed by his predecessor the High Court directed the Subordinate Judge to incorporate a direction in the fresh preliminary decree directing the appellants to account for the rents and profits received by them from the mortgaged properties pursuant to the direction given by this Court.
Having regard to the directions given by the High Court, he held that the appellants were liable to furnish accounts of the receipts of the mortgaged properties from August 10, 1950, the date of the filing of the suit, till they handed over possession of the mortgaged properties to the respondents.
That judgment had become final as the appellants did number prefer an appeal against the same, but instead filed an application for amendment of the decree.
Hence the appeal.
The learned Civil Judge broadly held that, having regard to the judgment of this Court, the appellants would be entitled to get interest accrued prior to March 18, 1950 but even so they would number be entitled to an amount higher than that claimed in the plaint.
The plaintiffs appellants did number file any appeal against the said preliminary decree but instead they filed an application in the said Court for amending the decree.
The learned Civil Judge held that the fresh preliminary decree was in companyformity with the judgment given by him and that there was numbermistake in the decree to be companyrected by way of amendment.
383 of 1956 and by the High Court in Civil Revision Petition No.
As regards the direction given in the preliminary decree in regard to the profits, the High Court held that the said direction was given in accordance with the order made by it and that apart, in view of the fact that a fresh preliminary decree was made, the Court had jurisdiction to give that direction.
On December 16, 1960, this Court allowed the appeal, and directed the Trial Court to pass a fresh preliminary decree by adding the amount of interest accrued due prior to March 13, 1950.
the appellants, by special leave, preferred an appeal to this Court.
71 of 1953.
25,000.
The proceedings came up before the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer, for passing a fresh preliminary decree pursuant to the directions given both by the Supreme Court and by the High Court.
181 of 1956.
Against the decree of the Judicial Commissioner dismissing Civil Appeal No.
The revision filed by the appellants was also dismissed on the ground that the fresh preliminary decree passed by the learned Civil Judge involved fresh adjudication determining the rights of the parties and an appeal lay against the said preliminary decree and, therefore, numberrevision would lie against that decree.
It will be recalled from the facts narrated in Gyarsi Bai v. Dhansukh Lal Civil Appeal No.
On August 25, 1954.
71 of 1953 against the said decree in so far as it disallowed the said interest to the Judicial Commissioner, Aimer, and the respondents filed cross objections against that part of the decree awarding companyts against them.
This Court further directed that in the light of this judgment a fresh preliminary decree in the appropriate form will be passed and the usual period of redemption will be given under the Code.
The appellants preferred Civil Appeal No.
Subba Rao, J. This appeal arises out of the fresh preliminary decree dated May 24, 1961, made by the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer, pursuant to the directions given by this Court in Civil Appeal No.
