Judgment Untwalia, J. 1. This is a miscellaneous first appeal by one of the judgment debtors. It appears that he was the main judgment debtor. His name is Sri Chhatu Ram Bhadani. His son, respondent No. 2, is also a judgment debtor. An equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds was created by Sri Chhatu Ram Bhadani in favour of an Insurance Company, predecessor-in-interest of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter called the Corporation), decree holder respondent No. 1. A suit for enforcement of the mortgage and for a decree for sale was filed in the Bombay High Court on its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction". A preliminary mortgage decree was passed on 21-7-1959. A final decree followed on 19-12-1960. It may be stated here that the defendants in the mortgage action had appeared to contest the suit, taken all sorts of pleas to save the property or a portion of it. but their objections were overruled, as would appear from the order under appeal. 2. Since the final mortgage decree passed by the Bombay High Court had directed sale of the property on failure of the judgment debtors to pay the decretal dues, procedure prescribed under Chapter XXVTI, Part TJ of the Rules and Forms of the Bombay High Court on the Original Side in its several jurisdiction (hereinafter called the Rules) followed. The property is situated in the district of Hazaribagh in Bihar within the jurisdiction of the Hazaribagh Court, Property was sold in accordance with the Rules of Chapter XXVIT by the Commissioner for taking Accounts on 11-5-1966. The decree holder Corporation purchased the property. On adjustment of the amount for which the property was sold with the portion of the decretal dues and after following the further procedure prescribed in Chapter XXVTT of the Rules the sale was confirmed on 12-8-1966 by an order of the Bombay High Court. Order confirming the sale and the certificate of sale was issued. The purchaser, namely, the Corporation became entitled to prorped to obtain possession of the property purchased by it in like manner as the purchaser of immovable property sold in execution under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the Code), as per Rule 540 of the Rules contained in Chapter XXVII. 3. The purchaser, namely, the Corporation became entitled to prorped to obtain possession of the property purchased by it in like manner as the purchaser of immovable property sold in execution under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the Code), as per Rule 540 of the Rules contained in Chapter XXVII. 3. The order confirming the sale made by the Bombay High Court was transferred for execution in accordance with the provisions of the Code by the Bombay High Court to the District Judge. Hazaribagh, who in his turn transferred it to the Subordinate Judges Court at Hazaribagh. When the Subordinate Judge proceeded to effect delivery of possession various objections were raised on behalf of the judgment debtors. Many of the objections raised on their behalf were the very same objections which had been taken at earlier stages in the Bombay High Court. They were therefore, rightly, not entertained by the execution Court at Hazaribagh, and nothing substantial in that behalf could be urged by the appellant in this Court. 4. But the question of importance with which there is no familiarity in Bihar was as to how after the passing of the final mortgage decree only sale could take place in the Bombay High Court and thereafter the order confirming the sale could be transferred to the Hazaribagh Court in accordance with Sec.39 and Order 21, Rule 5 of the Code for merely effecting delivery of possession by process of execution. In Bihar, the well-known process is to put a decree for sale passed in a mortgage action in execution and in the execution case the property is sold; of course, there is no question or necessity of attaching such a property as in a money decree execution, and after sale steps for delivery of possession in accordance with the rules engrafted in Order 21 of the Code are taken. We were, therefore, constrained to adjourn the hearing of this appeal on the last two occasions in order to get proper light and assistance from learned Counsel for the parties on this question with which we were ourselves not very familiar. Today, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, the Corporation, placed before us the relevant rules. We were, therefore, constrained to adjourn the hearing of this appeal on the last two occasions in order to get proper light and assistance from learned Counsel for the parties on this question with which we were ourselves not very familiar. Today, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, the Corporation, placed before us the relevant rules. On appreciating them, we have come to the conclusion that sale could take place in the Bombay High Court and the order confirming the sale could be transferred for execution to the Hazaribagh Court for effecting delivery of possession only. 5. A suit by a mortgagee of land to enforce his mortgage by sale can be maintained in the Bombay High Court under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of that Court, even when the mortgaged land is situate wholly outside the limits of the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of that Court. provided the defendant dwells or carries on business or personally works for gain or any part of the cause of action has arisen within the limits of such jurisdiction at the commencement of the suit. There cannot be anv doubt in this case nor could the point be agitated at this stage that the decree passed by the Bombav High Court to enforce the mortgage by sale of the mortgaged property was perfectly a good decree with jurisdiction. This view is well supported by a Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Hatimbhai Hassanally V/s. Fram-roz Eduljee Dinshaw, AIR 1927 Bom 278. 6. Then, a question arises as to whether a sale held by the Bombay High Court in accordance with the rules contained in Chapter XXVII of Part II was in execution of the decree or it was a proceeding in the suit itself. Chapter XVIII of the Rules is headed "Execution of Decrees and Orders." Rule 316 starts with the procedure for filing applications for the execution of decrees or orders, whether of the High Court or of any other Court. But the sale held in the instant case in pursuance of the mortgage decree for sale was not under Chapter XVIII. Chapter XXVII is headed "Office of Commissioner for taking Accounts". It appears, on reading the various rules provided in this Chapter beginning from Rule 456. But the sale held in the instant case in pursuance of the mortgage decree for sale was not under Chapter XVIII. Chapter XXVII is headed "Office of Commissioner for taking Accounts". It appears, on reading the various rules provided in this Chapter beginning from Rule 456. that if something is directed to be done by the decree itself, then there is no further question of filing an execution application for executing the decree, but the Commissioner is authorised to proceed in accordance with the rules contained in Chapter XXVII. A sub-heading "Sale of Properties" was introduced just before Rule 491 in Chapter XXVII (vide Bombay Government Gazette, dated the 21st January, 1960). Rule 491 thereafter says: "A duplicate or sealed copy of every decree or order for the sale of property by the Commissioner shall be filed in the office of the Commissioner." I shall now read Rule 494: "When mortgaged property is to be sold, the mortgagee or first mortgagee, and in other cases the plaintiff, or party having the carriage of the general proceedings, shall have the carriage of the proceedings relating to the sale; but a Judge may, when necessary, commit the carriage of such proceedings to any other party." In the various rules thereafter mode of notifying sale of property and the method of conducting sale have been given. Sale takes place in accordance with Rule 509. Certificate of result of sale is to be given by the Commissioner under Rule 519. and then Rule 520 speaks about certificate of sale to be confirmed by the Court in these words: "No sale of immovable property made under this chapter, shall become absolute, until it has been confirmed bv the Court." 7. On affidavits being filed on behalf of the decree-holder that no order had been made by the Bombay High Court for execution of the Judges order for confirmation of sale obtained on 12-8-1966 in Suit No. 271 of 1954, the order for confirmation which was transmitted to the Hazaribagh Court for execution passed by the Bombay High Court was in the following terms. "Upon reading the Certificate of the Commissioner for taking Accounts dated the 30th of day of June, 1966, and the Certificate of the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Hon ble Court dated the 10th day of August, 1966. "Upon reading the Certificate of the Commissioner for taking Accounts dated the 30th of day of June, 1966, and the Certificate of the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Hon ble Court dated the 10th day of August, 1966. endorsed thereon certifying that no application has been made to this Hon ble Court to set aside sale and upon reading the affidavit of R.C. Thakore solemnly affirmed on the 9th dav of August, 1966, in support and upon hearing M/s. Little and Co., Attorneys for the plaintiffs I do order that the sale of the immovable properties situate in the village Jhumri Telaiya District Kodarma (Hazaribagh) bearing Nos. 3345, 3347 and 3348 in the State of Bihar and more particularly described in the Schedule hereunder written on the 11th day of May. 1966, in favour of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the plaintiffs abovenamed hereby confirmed and I do further order that the Court Receiver, High Court Bombay appointed in this suit pursuant to the Orders dated the 18th day of March, 1955 and modified by the Order dated the 27th day of November, 1959, do on proof of execution of a Deed of Conveyance or of the issue of a Sale Certificate and on payment of his rests, charges, expenses and commission, if any, hand over to the said Life Insurance Corporation of India, the plaintiffs as the purchasers the possession of the said immovable properties described in the Schedule hereunder written and I do further order that the Court Receiver be and he is hereby discharged without passing his accounts and I do further order that the costs of the plaintiffs abovenamed of and incidental to the proceedings before the said Commissioner and of the Reference and of the said sales when taxed and noted in the margin hereof and the costs of this application and order fixed at Rs. 60.00 be costs in the sale and I do further order that the plaintiffs be and they are at liberty to apply to this Ilonble Court as and when occasion arises and I do lastly order that this order be file on or before the 22nd day of August, 1966." In my opinion, reading the order transmitted to the Hazaribagh Court for execution and effecting delivery of possession in the background of the various rules contained in Chapter XXVII, it has got to be held that the order for confirmation had the effect of the decree directing delivery of immovable property which was sold in Suit No. 271 of 1954 and not in a separate execution. Such a decree could be transferred under Sec.39 (1) (c) of the Code read with Order 21, Rule 5 for execution to the Hazaribagh Court, within whose jurisdiction the property in question is situate, That being so, I do not, after careful consideration. accept the argument put forward on behalf of the appellant as sound. It is not correct to say that the mortgage decree for sale was executed in part in the Bombay High Court, by selling the property, the sale was without iurisdiction, and for effecting delivery of possession only partly unexecuted decree could not be transferred. The correct view to take is that the sale effected by the Bombay High Court was a proceeding in suit, and the order passed by that Court confirming the sale had the force of a decree directing the delivery of property. It was validly transferred to the Hazaribagh Court, and that Court has rightly rejected the objection of the judgment-debtors tq the proceeding of the execution for delivery of possession only. 8 In passing. I may state that the judgment-debtors could raise objection under Section 47 of the Code, and the contrary view expressed by the Court below on the basis of an earlier decision of this Court does not seem to be correct in view of the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Harnandrai Badridas V/s. Debidutt Bhagwati Prasad, AIR 1973 SC 2423 . 9. For the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. Nagendra Prasad Singh, J. 10 I agree.