BHANU PRATAPSINGH Vs. PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to this appeal may shortly be stated as under: A mortgage by conditional sale was executed by one Rupsingh for himself and as guardian of his three minor sons, the appellants, on 15th April 1921 in favour of respondent Pratap Singh for Rs. 7,000. The debt was repayable with interest at one per cent per mensem in 14 years by annual instalments of Rs. 500 each and in default of payment of two instalments the whole debt was to become payable at once. The mortgaged property consisted of the whole village of Chicholi. On 3tsfr March 1927 the plaintiff-respondent brought the suit upon the said mortgage to recover Rs. 17,647-15-0 against the mortgagor Rupsingh and his three sons. As the father declined to act as guardian ad litem for his sons the Court Reader was appointed their guardian ad litem and defended the suit unsuccessfully. On 21st December 1927 a preliminary decree for foreclosure was passed against all the defendants for Rs. 20,269-14-6 and the usual six months time was fixed for redemption.

(2.) ON 25th June 1928 an application was made by the plaintiff for making the aforesaid decree final. At the request of the defendants and with the consent of the plaintiff the lower Court, on 25th August 1928, permitted the defendants to pay Rs. 1,000 within 25 days and ordered further extension of four months in case the above payment was made. On 22nd September 1928 further extension for a week was allowed by the lower Court at the request of the defendants, but as no payment wa3 made the preliminary decree was made absolute on 29th September 1928.

(3.) IT was also contended that since no order was passed on the application for six months' extension which was presented on behalf of three appellants by their pleader on 11th August 1928, the case should be remanded for an enquiry if sufficient cause existed for allowing the extension asked for in that application.