- (1.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are as under: (2) On 25-11-1947, Sital Parshad and Baij Nath, respondents, mortgaged their house with Ki-shori Lal appellant for a sum of Rs. 28,000/ -. On 16-1-1951, Kishori Lal filed a suit for safe of the mortgaged property. On 13-3-1952, a preliminary decree was passed in the said suit, declaring that the amount due to the plaintiff was : principal. . . . . . . . . Rs. 28,000-0-0 interest till the date of the suit Rs. 2,655-0-0 costs of the suit. . . . . . Rs. 2,142-8-0 Total. . . Rs. 32,797-8-0 the decree further provided that the plaintiff was entitled to future interest on the principal sum of Rs. 28. 000/- from the date of the decree till realisation. The judgment-debtors were given time to pay the amount referred to above by 10-101952, failing which the property was liable to be sold. The judgment-debtors did not pay the amount within the time allowed in the preliminary decree with the result that an application for passing of the final decree was made on 20-2-1954, and this decree was passed on 16-8-1954. The relevant portion of the above decree is as under : "and it is hereby further ordered and decreed that the money realised by such sale shall he paid into the Court and shall be duly applied (after deduction therefrom of the expenses of the sale) in payment of the amount payable to the plaintiff under the aforesaid preliminary decree and under any further orders that may have been passed in this suit and in payment of any amount which the Court may have adjudged due to the plaintiff for such costs of the suit including the costs of this application and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under rule 10, * * ***** *****. " In execution of this decree the judgment-debtors raised objections under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, to the effect that the decree-holder was not entitled to any interest after the date 10-10-1952. The main ground taken was that the final decree did not provide for the payment of any interest for the period after 10-101952, and the decree-holder was therefore not entitled to charge the same. The decree-holder resisted the objections and contended that the preliminary decree had expressly provided for payment of future interest till the date of the actual realisation and that this direction also covered the period from 10-10-1952 onwards. Certain other pleas were also taken by the judgment-debtors in their application under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, but the ultimate dispute only Centred round the future interest from 10-10-1952, to the date of realisation. The learned trial Court by its order dated 25"7-1957, gave effect to the objections of the judgment-debtors on the aforesaid point and held that interest calculated after 1010-1952, was not admissible to the decree-holder under the final decree and that the same must, therefore, be disallowed. The decree-holder feeling aggrieved against the said order has come up to this Court in first appeal. 3. The only point that falls for decision in this appeal is whether the decree-holder is entitled to interest after 10-10-1952, i. e. , the date fixed in the preliminary decree for the payment of the decretal amount. 4. Now, the preliminary decree in a suit for sale is made under the provisions of R, 4 of Order 34, Civil Procedure Code, which reads : "in a suit for sale if the plaintiff succeeds, the Court shall pass a preliminary decree to the effect mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) (i) of Sub-rule (1) of rule 2, ***** *****. " Rule 2 (1) (c) (i) of Order 34 provides "that if the defendant 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 plaintiff shall ***** *****" rule 11 of Order 34 provides for the payment of interest, In clause (a) it provides for interest up to the date on or before which payment of the amount found or declared due is under the preliminary decree to be made by the mortgagor or other per-sons redeeming the mortgage, and in clause (h) it provides for subsequent interest up to the date of realisation or actual payment on the aggregate of the principal sums specified in clause (a) as calculated in accordance with that clause at such rate as the Court deems reasonable. There can be no doubt that the interest covered by both the clauses, name-ly, (a) and (b) of Rule 11 of Order 34 has to be provided for in the preliminary decree granted under order 34, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code. The preliminary decree for sale has to be passed in Form No. 5a and the final decree in Form No. 6 of Appendix D of the Code of Civil Procedure. Form No. 5a provides for payment of interest and of future interest till the date of realisation. Form No. 6 merely provides for a sale being made and the amount being realised. In the present case the trial Court clearly allowed in the preliminary decree the future interest to the plaintiff till the date of realisation, and in the final decree a reference was made to all the amounts payable under the preliminary decree, which clearly meant the amounts payable in respect of the following : 1. principal;
(2.) INTEREST;
(3.) FUTURE interest till the date of realisation; and;