The preliminary decree be drawn accordingly.
the owner of the property, mortgaged the same with Achaldas Oswal Original Defendant No.
In the said objection it was also companytended out that the respondents application for extension of time having been dismissed by the companyrt by the said order dated 30th January, 1975, the said proceeding was number maintainable.
78 of 1969 wherein preliminary decree was drawn on 18th January, 1972 on the ground that the same was barred by limitation.
2003 1 SCR 340 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
281 situated at Ward B, in the town of Kolhapur.
Order regarding possession of the suit property and companyt of the suit would be passed in final decree.
The learned Civil Judge accepting the plea of the appellant herein that the said application was barred by limitation dismissed the said application for preparation of a final decree.
The mortgage was an usufructuary one.
310 of 1998 whereby and whereunder he allowed the revision application filed by the respondent herein questioning an order dated 17th October, 1990 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, S.D. Kolhapur in final decree proceeding registered as Application No.
The said order, however, was passed without prejudice to the rights of the parties.
21 of 1975 rejecting an application purported to be under Order XXXIV, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure C.P.C. for short for preparation of final decree in Special Civil Suit No.
11,000 was number deposited by the plaintiff Respondent No.l.
Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, the first respondent herein filed a revision application before the Bombay High Court which, as numbericed hereinbefore, was allowed by the impugned judgment holding that there is numberperiod of limitation for filing an application for preparation of a final decree in respect of redemption of usufructuary mortgage.
1 since deceased for a period of five years.
Application No.
Although the said order was number challenged by the plaintiff, he obtained the permission to make necessary deposit which was companyplied with by the plaintiff on or about 6th February, 1975.
Within a period of three years from the said date, namely, 6th February, 1975, the first respondent filed an application for preparation of a final decree.
Within the stipulated time, namely, on or about 17th April, 1972, the said sum of Rs.
The amount of expenses proportionately incurred by the mortgage or defendant number 1 to the above debt in respect of the mortgage security including the payment of Municipal taxes and refers to the mortgaged property together with interest be taken through Commissioner.
11,000 within three months on or before 17.4.1972.
As the dues in relation to the suit property was number repaid by Pandit G.S. Naik to Kolhapur Bank, the property was sold in auction which was purchased by the first respondent herein.
85 of 1972 for extension of time to make the payment as directed in the preliminary decree, which was rejected by order dated 30th January, 1975.
He, however, filed an application marked as Misc.
An objection thereto was filed by the original defendant numberl, inter alia, on the ground that the same was number maintainable as being barred by limitation.
He filed a suit marked as Special Civil Suit No, 78 of 1969 inter alia for redemption of mortgage wherein a preliminary decree was passed on 18th January, 1972 the operative portion whereof reads thus The plaintiff shall deposit into Court the mortgaged money amounting to Rs.
The plaintiff shall apply for appointment of the Commissioner in this respect in final decree proceedings.
FACTS The property in suit is a building bearing City Survey No.
Admittedly, Pandit Govind Shinde Naik.
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 9th November.
2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Civil Revision Application No.
