- (1.) For a proper appreciation of the points raised in this appeal we need refer to the following facts: The predecessor-in-interest of the present Appellants had obtained a preliminary decree against the predecessor-in-interest of the Defendants-Respondents in enforcement of a mortgage bond executed in favour of the former. The judgment-debtors preferred an appeal to this Court (F.A. 279 of 1942). The decree passed by the trial court was affirmed with certain modifications. The amount decreed was directed to be paid in instalments. The direction was in the following terms: We accordingly direct that the entire decretal amount should be paid in two equal yearly instalments. The first instalment is to be paid on or before the 31st March, 19+6 and the second instalment within one year thereafter. In default of the payment of any of the instalments the Plaintiffs will be entitled to avail themselves of the provisions of the Bengal Money Lenders Act.
(2.) The judgment debtors failed to pay either of the two instalments. On November 6, 1948, the Plaintiffs decree-holders filed a petition for making the decree final. On December 3, following that application was dismissed on the ground that the notices required to be giver, on the Defendants under Section 34 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act had not been issued.
(3.) On January 20. 1948 the Plaintiffs decree-holders filed another application for making the decree final. Certain notices under Section 34 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act were issued. Objections however were raised by the judgment debtors that, the alleged notices were not in accordance with law. On June 2. 1949 the objections were heard and the court found some of the notices to have been defective. It was ordered: The decree-holders be directed to give fresh notice in the required form to all the judgment debtors and then apply again for final decree according to law.;