JUDGMENT : RICHARDS, J.:— In this case it appears that one Ide Khan mortgaged certain property to one Babu Prasad. He subsequently mortgaged the same property to one Khiali Ram and his brother. One Gulzari Lal attached the property in execution of a simple money decree, whereupon Khiali Ram, who had purchased his brother's interest and had become sole owner of the second mortgage, brought a suit on the latter making Ide Khan, the mortgagor, Gulzari Lal, who has attached the property, and Babu Prasad, the first mortgagee, defendants. Gulzari Lal was father of Babu Prasad, the first mortgagee. Khiali Ram obtained a decree for sale subject to his redeeming the first mortgage which amounted to a sum of Rs. 238-10-0. The decree, however, only found Rs. 40 as being due to Khiali Ram on his own mortgage and it gave him a limited time to redeem the much larger sum due to Babu Prasad. Khiali Ram appealed against the decree awarding him only Rs. 40, and the result of his appeal was that a sum of Rs. 200 was substituted as being due on foot of his mortgage instead of the sum of Rs. 40 decreed by the Court of first instance. The appellate decree seems to have been carelessly prepared and it made no provision for extending the time allowed to Khiali Ram to redeem the mortgage of Babu Prasad. On the 29th March, 1905, Khiali Ram applied to the Munsif to deposit the amount due to Babu Prasad. The Munsif refused. Khiali Ram then applied to amend the decree in some particular including an amendment providing for an extension of time. The decree was amended, though not in this particular, but on the 8th of August the Court which made the decree on appeal extended the time for redeeming the mortgage of Babu Prasad, to the 20th of August, 1905. In pursuance of this order Khiali Ram lodged in Court the amount due to Babu Prasad upon foot of his mortgage, and on the 6th of November, 1905, the present appeal was filed. The sole ground is that the order of the 8th of August, 1905, was made without jurisdiction. The appeal is wholly void of merits. In pursuance of this order Khiali Ram lodged in Court the amount due to Babu Prasad upon foot of his mortgage, and on the 6th of November, 1905, the present appeal was filed. The sole ground is that the order of the 8th of August, 1905, was made without jurisdiction. The appeal is wholly void of merits. Babu Prasad, the appellant, has now waiting for him in Court all that he is legally entitled to, viz., the full amountt of his prior mortgage, principal and interest; he now seeks by a technical objection to prevent Khiali Ram obtaining the benefit of his second mortgage and the suit which he brought on foot thereof; The contention of the appellant is based on the case of Sheo Narain v. Chunni Lal(,[1900] I.L.R. 23 All., 88. in which it was held that the proper Court to apply to for postponement of the date fixed for redeeming the prior mortgage is the Court of first instance. I am bound by this decision and I have no doubt that the proper Court to hear such an application is the Court of first instance and not the appellate Court, but I do not understand the Court to decide that the appellate Court had no jurisdiction to extend the time in a case in which there had been an appeal to itself. It is conceded that it might and ought to have provided for an extension of time by its decree. It seems to me that although the proper Court to which to apply for an extension of time to redeem Babu Prasad's mortgage would have been the Munsif, there is nothing to oblige me to set aside the order now appealed against and in so doing work a great injustice. I dismiss the appeal. Under all the circumstances I direct that each party shall abide his own costs of the appeal.