JUDGMENT : 1. The only question raised in this appeal, which arises out of an application for the execution of a decree is whether an appeal lay to the Court below from the decision of the Court of first instance. The facts are these. The plaintiffs decree-holders, as holders of a mortgage dated 16th July 1902, from defendant 1, brought a suit for sale upon this mortgage or in the alternative for possession of the mortgaged property. The defendants to the suit were the mortgagor and defendants 2 and 3 who were the subsequent purchasers of the property from the mortgagor. Defendant 4 was the widow of one Ramnath who is said to have held a prior mortgage. Defendants 2 and 3 resisted the claim of the plaintiffs. The Court found that out of the consideration for the plaintiff's mortgage they had withheld Rs. 50 for payment of the amount of Ramnath's mortgage. Similarly out of the consideration for the sale in favour of defendants 2 and 3, Rs. 50 was withheld by them for the same purpose, namely, the discharge of Ramnath's mortgage. But neither the plaintiffs nor defendants 2 and 3 paid off the mortgage in favour of Ramnath. 2. The Court dismissed the claim for recovery of the mortgage money, but made a decree for possession of the mortgaged property subject to the condition that the plaintiffs should pay to defendants 2 and 3 Rs. 50 within one month from the date of the decree, and directed that if they failed to do so, their suit would stand dismissed. One fails to understand why the Court ordered the plaintiffs to pay Rs. 50 to defendants 2 and 3 who had not paid that amount to the prior mortgagee, Ramnath, but had withheld it out of the consideration for the sale in their favour. It is however, manifest from the decree that if the plaintiffs did not pay Rs. 50 to defendants 2 and 3 within the time fixed, their suit was to stand dismissed. Id this respect the observation of the Court of first instance that “there is no order in the decree to the effect that the plaintiff's right of redemption would be lost” is incorrect. The decree as drawn up was not a decree for the redemption of any mortgage. Id this respect the observation of the Court of first instance that “there is no order in the decree to the effect that the plaintiff's right of redemption would be lost” is incorrect. The decree as drawn up was not a decree for the redemption of any mortgage. Defendants 2 and 3 did not hold a prior mortgage nor did they set up any prior mortgage which they had discharged, so that it is manifest that the decree was not a decree for the redemption of a prior mortgage. But for some reason which it is not easy to understand the Court made a decree for possession in plaintiff's favour conditional on their paying Rs. 50 to defendants 2 and 3 within one month from the date of the decree. The amount was not paid within a month but was deposited, subsequently, on 4th October 1910. On 28th July 1911, the decree-holders applied for execution of the decree and prayed for delivery of possession. This application was opposed on the ground that Rs. 50 ordered by the decree to be paid to defendants 2 and 3 had not been deposited within the time allowed, and that, therefore, the suit must be deemed to have stood dismissed. The judgment-debtor, defendant, prayed that the application for execution should be disallowed. The Court of first instance overruled the objection of the judgment-debtor and holding that the decree was one for redemption said in its judgment that it had the power to extend the time for payment and accordingly extended it. The final order, however, as I have said above, was one disallowing the judgment-debtor's objection, i.e., ordering execution to issue. The record shows that execution proceedings were taken in pursuance of this order. If the decree was a decree for redemption, I fail to understand how the plaintiffs could have applied for execution and delivery of possession without obtaining a final decree under R. 8, O. 34 of the CPC. However, from the order passed by the Court of first instance an appeal was preferred to the District Judge, and the learned Judge set aside the decision of the first Court. It is urged that no appeal lay to the Court below and reliance is placed upon Suranjan Singh v. Ram Bahak Lal, [1913] 35 All. 582 : 21 I.C. 585. That case, in my opinion, has no bearing on the present case. It is urged that no appeal lay to the Court below and reliance is placed upon Suranjan Singh v. Ram Bahak Lal, [1913] 35 All. 582 : 21 I.C. 585. That case, in my opinion, has no bearing on the present case. The appeal to the Court below was from an order disallowing the objection of the judgment-debtor in respect of the execution of the decree. The decree holders applied for execution and the objection of the judgment-debtor was that no execution could take place inasmuch as the suit must be deemed to have stood dismissed. The order of the Court of first instance disallowing that objection was an order relating to the execution of the decree within the meaning of Section 47 of the CPC, and an appeal lay from that order to the lower appellate Court. On the merits the decision of the Court of first instance was clearly wrong and was rightly set aside. I dismiss the appeal with costs including fees on the higher scale.