Sureshwar Thakur, J. - (1.) The plaintiff instituted a suit, under, the H.P. Debt Reduction Act, for possession by way of redemption of mortgage, of, the suit property AND for accounts. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court. Being aggrieved therefrom, the plaintiff instituted an appeal before the learned District Judge, Shimla, whereupon, the latter allowed the plaintiff's appeal and pronounced a decree for possession of the suit property, subject to payment of Rs.200/-, as redemption money, by the plaintiff, to the defendant/respondent herein. The learned District Judge, also directed that the aforesaid quantum of money, being liquidated by the plaintiff within a period of six months, period whereof was enjoined to commence, from, the date of the learned First Appellate Court, pronouncing its decision upon Civil Appeal No. 96-S/13 of 1999. Apparently, the aforesaid quantum of redemption money, remained unliquidated, by the plaintiff vis-a-vis the defendant, within, the time stipulated, in the verdict pronounced by the learned First Appellate Court.
(2.) Before proceeding to determine, the validity(ies) of the endeavours, made, by the plaintiff, to seek enlargement, of, the peremptory period, prescribed in the decree pronounced, by the learned District Judge, Shimla, (i) it would be necessary, to, allude to the trite fact, of, the defendant impugning, the judgement and decree, pronounced by the learned First Appellate Court, by his instituting, a Regular Second Appeal, before this Court, (ii) the aforesaid Regular Second Appeal bearing RSA No. 503 of 2002-G, being disposed off, by this Court under a pronouncement recorded, on, 02.03.2013. (iii) A perusal of the order sheets, of, the aforesaid RSA, disclose, of, the plaintiff being arrayed, as a respondent, in the aforesaid RSA, (iv) AND his being initially represented on 14.11.2002, by his duly constituted counsel, (v) whereafter, upto a final verdict being pronounced, upon RSA No.503 of 2002, he stood represented by his duly constituted counsel. (vi) Since, the pronouncement, of, a verdict, upon, the apposite Civil Appeal No. 96-S/13 of 1999, by the learned First Appellate Court, upto, a decision being recorded by this Court, upon, RSA No. 503 of 2002-G, the plaintiff visibly failing, to liquidate the mortgage money vis-a-vis the defendant, (vi) obviously the mandated time prescribed, in the verdict pronounced by the learned First Appellate Court, expired, much prior to a final verdict being pronounced by this Court, upon, the aforesaid RSA. A perusal of the order sheet recorded, on 30.10.2012 in RSA No.503 of 2012-G, discloses, of, the counsel for the plaintiff/respondent being directed to make an ascertainment, whether the mortgage sum of Rs.200/-, being or not deposited by the plaintiff. On ascertainments, qua the aforesaid facet, being made by the counsel, for the plaintiff, the latter on 29.11.2012, purveyed an information vis-a-vis the Court, qua the mortgage money being not deposited. Consequently, an application seeking enlargement of time, for, depositing the mortgage money was instituted before this Court. However, relief upon the aforesaid application, stood declined, on the trite ground of it, being not, grantable by this Court, rather it being grantable by the court concerned, which had fixed the time for its deposit. Consequently, the learned District Judge, Shimla, who pronounced, a decree for possession, by way of redemption and had also assessed, the redemption/mortgage money, in a sum of Rs.200/- besides had prescribed a period six months, for its deposit, period whereof was mandated, to, commence, from, its making its rendition, upon, his being seized, with the apposite application, proceeded to decline the apposite relief to the plaintiff/petitioner herein. Consequently, the plaintiff/petitioner herein is aggrieved therefrom, hence, through the instant petition, concerts to beget its reversal.
(3.) The relevant hereat provisions, of, the CPC ARE borne in Order 34, Rule 7 of the CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- 7. Preliminary decree in redemption Suit.- (1) In a Suit for redemption, if the plaintiff succeeds, the court shall pass a preliminary decree- (a) ordering that an account be taken of what was due to the defendant at the date of such decree for- (i) principal and interest on the mortgage, (ii) the costs of suit, if any, awarded to him, and (iii) other costs, charges and expenses properly incurred by him up to that date, in respect of his mortgage security, together with interest thereon; or (b) declaring the amount so due at that date; and (C) directing- (i) that, if the plaintiff pays into court the amount so found or declared due on or before such date as the court may fix within six months from the date on which the court confirms and countersigns the account taken under clause (a), or from the date on which such amount is declared in Court under clause (b), as the case may be, and thereafter pays such amount as may be adjudged due in respect of subsequent costs, charges and expenses as provided in rule 10, together with subsequent interest on such sums respectively as provided in rule 11, the defendant shall deliver up to the plaintiff, or to such person as the plaintiff appoints, all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property and shall, if so required re-transfer the property to the plaintiff at his cost free from the mortgage and from all encumbrances created by the defendant or any person claiming under him or, where the defendant claims by derived title, by those under whom he claims, and shall also, if necessary, put the plaintiff in possession of the property; and (ii) that, if payment of the amount found or declared due under or by the preliminary decree is not made on or before the date so fixed, or the plaintiff fails to pay, within such time as the court may fix, the amount adjudged due in respect of subsequent costs, charges, expenses and interest, the defendant shall be entitled to apply for a final decree- (a) in the case of a mortgage other than a usufructuary mortgage, a mortgage by conditional sale, or an anomalous mortgage the terms of which provide for foreclosure only and not for sale, that the mortgaged property to be sold, or (b) in the case of a mortgage by conditional sale or such an anomalous mortgage as aforesaid, that the plaintiff be debarred from all right to redeem the property. (2) The court may, on good cause shown and upon terms to be fixed by the court, from time to time, at any time before the passing of a final decree for foreclosure or sale, as the case may be, extend the time fixed for the payment of the amount found or declared due under sub-rule (1) or of the amount adjudged due in respect of subsequent costs, charges, expenses and interest.;