HET SINGH Vs. TIKA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Khushal Singh mortgaged the property in suit to Bhagwant Singh on the 19th of November, 1889. He again mortgaged it to Tika Ram on the 2nd of January, 1894. Bhagwant Singh brought a suit on his mortgage without impleadiug Tika Ram and got a decree on the 23rd of June, 1900, in execution of which he bought the property on the 15th of August, 1904, Tika Ram, on the 7th of February, 1910, got a decree to redeem the mortgage of Bhagwant Singh on payment of Rs. 462 with interest. The decree was in general terms and did not set out the amount of interest which Tika Ram had to pay. It provided that if Tika Ram failed to pay up to the 15th of August", 1904, his suit was to be dismissed. The date is presumably wrong. The 15th of August, 1910, was the date fixed. The date of the mortgage in favour of Bhagwant Singh is also wrongly shown as November, 1890, instead of the 19th of November, 1889. On the 2nd of August, 1910, Tika Ram paid into the court Rs. 2,278, calculating interest from November, 1890. The sum was less than the full amount due on the mortgage if calculated from the 19th of November, 1889. The judgment-debtors taking advantage of the mistake applied on the 21st of November, 1910, that Tika Ram s claim be dismissed on the ground of the provision in the decree and that costs be awarded to the applicants. The court of first instance acting under Section 148, Civil Procedure Code, enlarged the time for payment up to the 15th of February, 1911, and rejected the application. In appeal two points wore considered: (1) Could the time for the payment of the money due on the mortgage of Bhagwant Singh be extended under Section 148, Civil Procedure Code ? (2) Was good cause shown for extending the time. ?

(2.) The lower appellate court found that the time for the payment of money under a mortgage decree could be extended under Section 148, Civil Procedure Code, and that good cause was shown, for the extension. On the above findings the lower appellate court upheld the order of the first, court.

(3.) In second appeal it is urged that suction 148, Civil Procedure Code, has no application ; that, an executing court 1 as no power to extend the time fixed by the mortgage decree for the payment of a prior mortgagee, and that no good cause was shown for the extension of the time for the payment. We are of opinion that Section 148, Civil Procedure Code, applies to cases in which is extended the time fixed by the Code of Civil Procedure for the doing of some act and not to the extending of the time fixed by a mortgage decree for the payment of a prior mortgage.