Dwivedi, J. - (1.) These appeals raise common questions and are accordingly being disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) In a suit about (inter alia) the Mill No. 3, to which the appellant was a party, a preliminary decree was passed, and pending the preparation of the final decree a receiver was appointed. Pending appeal from the preliminary decree in this Court the receiver granted a lease to a person, from whom the appellant took the sub-lease. When the period of that lease was about to expire, the appellant claimed an extention of the lease on account of the labour strikes in the Mill. The lease was extended up to March 31, 1959 and the court directed him to vacate the Mill. He prayed for time to wind up his business, and the court gave him fifteen days' time. The court also fixed April 27, 1959 for auctioning a fresh lease. On that date the appellant stated to the court that in the event the lease of the Mill No. 3 is not granted to him, he shall deliver vacant possession of Mill No. 3 to the prospective lessee within 15 days'. Before auctioning the lease the court announced its terms, two of them being the two years' period of the lease and the advance deposit of the lease-money for the entire term by the highest bidder, The appellant's highest bid of Rs. 2800/- was accepted by the court. The appellant's prayer that he should be permitted to deposit one year's lease money within fifteen days and the balance amount of the second year's lease money in the succeeding fortnight was granted by the court. The court then passed the following order:-- "....The formal lease deed shall be executed after the two years' lease money is deposited in advance by Seth Loonkaran Sethiya. I want to make it clear that in case within 15 days from this date half of two years' advance lease money or the remaining amount in the next 15 days is not deposited by Seth Loonkaran. Sethiya, the lease shall be granted to the next highest bidder .. The entire amount shall be deposited in court."
(3.) At his request time was extended up to May 12, 1959, but there was again a default, and on May 23, 1959 the court ordered the receiver to take charge of the Mill. On May 26, 1959 the appellant requested that the receiver could take possession after three days, but his request was not granted. The first appeal is directed against that order.;