DATTATRAYA VITHAL GARWARE Vs. VASUDEO ANANT GARGATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the few material facts are these. A decree was passed by the lower appellate Court on November 27, 1917, under which the mortgagor was to pay a certain sum within six months, and in the event of his failure to pay he was to be debarred from redeeming. That time expired on May 27, 1918. In the meanwhile the mortgagor preferred a second appeal to this Court from that decree on March 12, 1918, which was dismissed under Order XLI, Rule 11, on July 9, 1918. On the application of the mortgagee the decree was made absolute on October 3, 1918, after notice to the mortgagor. The mortgagor tendered the money payable under the decree passed on November 27, 1917, in Court on October 23, 1918, and made an application for execution of the decree claiming redemption. Bus his application was rejected, and his further prayer for extension of time under Order XXXIV, Rule 8, also was disallowed.

(2.) From this order of the Subordinate Judge rejecting his application be appealed to the District Court, and the learned District Judge of Satara dismissed his appeal with costs, accepting the view taken by the Court of first instance on both the points.

(3.) From that decree the applicant has appealed to this Courts and it is urged by way of preliminary objection that the appeal, so far as it relates to the prayer for extension of time under Order XXXIV, Rule 8, is not competent because the order refusing to extend time is appealable as an order under Order XLIII, Rule 1(o), and that no further appeal is allowed from an order made in appeal. Section 104, Sub-section (c), of the Civil Procedure Code, is clear on the point. The preliminary objection seems to be good so far.