On April 8, 1959 the respondent appeared and objected that the amount due was number Rs.
On March 20, 1959, the appellant applied to the trial companyrt for permission to deposit the sum of Rs.
and held that in view of O.XXXIV r. 8 1 the deposit made on April 9, 1959 before the final decree was passed on April 18, 1959 was within time, even though the money might have been deposited after the time fixed under O.XXXIV r.7.
Thereupon the appellant deposited a further sum of Rs.
46,882/6/6 and therefore the deposit was short by a sum over Rs.
42,204/5/ but Rs.
The trial companyrt held on April 18, 1959 that the deposit was made beyond time and therefore directed that a final decree for foreclosure in favour of the respondent be drawn up.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated March 16, 1963 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No.
In the result the High Court set aside the order of the Additional District Judge and restored the order of the trial companyrt passing a decree for foreclosure in favour of the respondent.
88/1/ , the entire amount had number been deposited and in companysequence numberfinal decree companyld be passed in favour of the appellant.
K. Sen and R. Gopalakrishnan, for respondent number 1.
4,000/ .
On March 28, 1959, the appellant deposited the amount.
On this application, the High Court passed an order on July 26, 1954.
V. Gupte, Solicitor General, Rameshwar Nath, S. N. Andley P. L. Vohra and Mahinder Narain, for the appellant.
On March 27, 1959, the trial companyrt permitter the appellant to deposit the amount but made it clear that this did number amount to, any extension of time for making the deposit, and the question whether the deposit was made within time would be decided after hearing both parties.
This order provided that if the appellant gave an undertaking to pay nine per cent per annum interest instead of three per cent per annum during the period of stay, the order of the trial companyrt directing the appellant to deposit the decretal amount by August 15, 1954 would be stayed.
Notice was also issued to the respondent on the same date.
The shortage was only on account of the sum due as a result of the stay order passed by the High Court by which he was required to pay six per cent per annum more as interest for the duration of the stay.
About the same time, the appellant applied to the High Court praying that the order requiring him to deposit the decretal amount by August 15, 1954 be stayed till the disposal of the appeal by the High Court.
It also provided that if payment was made within the time limited under O.XXXIV r. 7 1 c of the Code of Civil Procedure, final decree would be passed.
The High Court allowed the revision on July 22, 1961 and remanded the appeal to the Additional District Judge for decision on the merits.
Thereupon the appellant obtained special leave from this Court, and that is how the matter has companye before us.
The High Court agreed with the Additional District Judge.
There were appeals by both parties from this preliminary decree to the High Court.
The Additional District Judge who heard the appeal rejected the memorandum of appeal as insufficiently stamped The appellant then filed a revision before the High Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Consequently the Additional District Judge ordered that a final decree be drawn up in favour of the appellant.
The appellant then went in appeal to the District Judge.
In companysequence the order of stay passed by the High Court came into force and numberdeposit was made by August 15, 1954.
42,204/5/ .
The appellant brought a suit for redemption of certain mortgaged property.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and arises in the following circumstances.
88/ 1/ .
It specified the amount due as principal and the amount due as interest upto a certain date.
On March 23, 1962, the Additional District Judge allowed the appeal holding on the basis of O.XXXIV, r. 8 that as the amount had been paid before the final decree was passed, it was within time.
Thereupon the appellant gave an undertaking to the trial companyrt on August 7, 1954 that he would pay nine per cent per annum simple interest instead of three per cent per annum during the period of stay.
On October 16, 1958, the High Court dismissed both the appeals and the preliminary decree stood companyfirmed.
Parties were to bear their own companyts.
But the High Court also took the view that the mortgagor appellant had to deposit the entire amount due on the date of the deposit and as there was a shortage of Rs.
It also provided that future interest was to be paid at three per cent per annum on a certain sum from that date till the date of realisation.
A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on February 3, 1954.
86 of 1962.
Further the decree provided for payment of the amount due on or before July 15, 1964 or within such time as might be extended.
959 of 1964.
In the meantime the appellant had prayed for extension of time and the trial companyrt had extended time for making payment upto August 15, 1954.
4,590/ on April 9,1959 and prayed for a final decree in his favour.
It may be numbericed that it was also companytended before the Additional District Judge that the amount deposited was short by Rs.
