SADASHIV ISHWARA POWAR Vs. SUSHILABAI NARAYAN BHANDURGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal directed against the appellate decree passed by the learned Assistant Judge of Sangli in proceedings arising out of an order, dated December 9, 1971, by which the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Miraj granted the application of the defendant -respondent herein for passing a final decree in pursuance of the preliminary decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 149 of 1969.

(2.) THE facts which are necessary to be stated in order to appreciate the controversy in this appeal are as follows: The appellant Sadashiv Ishwara Powar and the respondent Sushilabai are related as real brother and sister, The dispute relates to the mortgage of a house situated at Miraj, which originally belonged to the appellant. The appellant had mortgaged this house with possession for Rs. 6,000. The appellant had filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 149 of 1969 to redeem the said mortgage and it appears that a preliminary decree for redemption was passed in that suit ordering the appellant -mortgagor to pay the mortgage money and other expenses. This decree was passed on February 23, 1970 and the appellant -mortgagor was granted six months' time i.e. upto August 23, 1970 to pay the said amount.

(3.) IT appears that after the passing of the preliminary decree and before the time of six months expired, the appellant -mortgagor did not deposit the decretal amount or pay to the mortgagee, but has filed an application at exh. 2 on August 20, 1970 which was purported to be filed under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure contained in Order 34 Rule 7(2) of the Code. This application is not included in the paper book, but Mr. M.A. Bane, the learned advocate for the appellant has read out the contents of this application in the Court and I have myself gone through the application which is in Marathi and on this application there is an endorsement of the Court 'Notice to other side'. It is not disputed that this application does not bear any formal adjudication either refusing to entertain this application or passing any such judicial order, which would either grant any legal right or refuse any such right being enforced by any party. In short, this application is not decided at all and remains undisposed of. I have myself seen the application exh. 2 and I find that there is no formal judicial order passed on this application at all. Therefore, it must be taken as a matter of fact that this application remains on record of the Court undecided and undisposed of even to -day.