(1.) By this common judgment, applications, moved by the plaintiffs, namely- IA. 12101/91 in S. No.2247/85, IA. 12105/91 in S. No. 2248/85, IA. 12106/91 in S. No. 2249/85 and IA. 12162/91 in S. No. 2251/85, under Order XXXIV, Rules 5 and 6 CPC, for passing of the final decree, pursuant to the preliminary decree for mortgage passed on 26-9-1988, are being decided. This judgment would also decide applications, moved by the defendants, under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, namely, IA.2763/96 in S. No. 2247/85, IA.2764/96 in S. No. 2248/85, IA, 2765/96 in S. No. 2249/85 and IA. 2766/96 in S. No. 2251/85, seeking to restrain the plaintiff from proceeding with the application for passing of the final decree for sale of the properties mortgaged with the plaintiff-Bank. The applications are being decided by this common judgment, since apart from the common plaintiff, defendants Nos. 2 and 3, are the common guarantors, namely. Dr. Bajrang Singh and Mr. Krishan Bihari Rohtagi. The objection sought to be raised against the passing of the final decree are also based on common facts and grounds.
(2.) Before dealing with the legal grounds of objections sought to be raised in the applications, under decision, for facility of reference, the facts of individual suits relevant for the decision are given below :
(3.) A preliminary mortgage decree for recovery of Rs. 1,53,400.80 together with cost and interest at 17.5 per cent per annum was passed. Defendants were also required to make the payment within six months and in default plaintiff was entitled to move the Court for passing of the final decree. Plaintiff has moved the Application No. l2l62/91 for passing of the final decree. Defendants have raised similar objection to the final decree being passed as in the other connected suits and have also filed application bearing No. 2766/96, seeking a restraint on the plaintiff from proceeding with the petition for passing of a final decree. These aspects and other common objections are being dealt with separately.