Sen, J. - (1.) This revision application is directed against an order of the Sub-Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore, dismissing an application under Sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the decree drawn up in title mortgage suit No. 3/56 of that Court, on the ground that the decree had not been drawn up in accordance with the judgment.
(2.) The facts are briefly as follows: Opposite party No. 5 Braja Behari Roy with his two sons and two daughters who were opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 borrowed Rs 30,000/-from Hindustan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. on 20th November, 1952, and executed a mortgage deed in favour of the Society stipulating payment of interest at 7 1/2% with quarterly rests, the mortgaged premises being the premises at 13/2, Swinhoe Street, in Ballyganj, Calcutta. No amount having been repaid on the mortgage, the Hindustan co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. filed on 6th January, 1956, the title mortgage suit No. 3/56 in the second Court of tne Subordinate Judge, Alipore, for the recovery of Rs. 37,853/2/-, that is the principal Rs. 30,000 interest calculated at the agreed rate upto the date of the institution of the suit. In the piaint, among others, the following prayers were made. (a) A preliminary mortgage decree for sale for Rs. 37,853-2-0 with interest thereon @ 7 1/2 % per annum with quarterly rests from the date of filing of the suit till me date of preliminary decree. (b) Further interest at the stipulated rate of 7 1/2% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of the preliminary decree to the date of the final decree and at Court rate on the amount decreed from the date of the final decree till realisation.
(3.) There was also a prayer for a direction that the defendant No. 5 was personally liable to pay the interest. But although the suit was ultimately heard ex parte, tne prayer for making defendant No. 5 personally liable tor the interest was rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge and the suit was decreed preliminarily ex parte against the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 with costs upto that stage. The suit was dismissed on contest against the Corporation of Calcutta who was made defendant No. 6, but we are not concerned with the Corporation of Calcutta in this case. 6 months' grace was provided in the order, and it was further mentioned that in default of payment of the decretal sum within the grace period, the plaintiff would be entitled to get a final decree in accordance with the law.;