Judgment 1. This second appeal is focused by the plaintiff, animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2008 passed by the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in A.S.No.683 of 2007 confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2007 passed by the learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.2995 of 2003. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the trial Court. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.2995 of 2003 seeking the redemption of mortgage and permanent injunction as against the defendant. The defendant entered appearance and filed the written statement resisting the suit. 3. The trial Court framed the relevant issues. During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Exhibits A-1 and A-2 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, one T. Chandraseker was examined and Exhibit B-1 was marked. 4. Ultimately the trial Court dismissed the suit, as against which, the first appeal A.S.No.683 of 2007 was filed by the plaintiff for nothing but to be dismissed the lower appellate Court confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Being disconcerted and aggrieved by the judgment and decree of both the Courts below, the plaintiff has filed this second appeal on various grounds by setting out the alleged substantial questions of law. 5. After hearing the learned counsel on both the sides for some time, the following substantial question of law was framed: "Whether both the Courts below were justified in dismissing the suit for redemption an merely finding fault with the quantum of amount to be deposited by the plaintiff in the process of getting the mortgage redeemed?" and the learned counsel on both sides advanced arguments on the above. 6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/second appellant would appropriately and appositely correctly and convincingly would put forth his argument to the effect that in a suit for redemption even, if the plaintiffs suggestion or stand that he has to pay only a certain amount is found to be wrong nonetheless, the duty of the Court is to pass a preliminary decree as prescribed under Order 34 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure and direct the Commissioner to go into the accounts and give directions thereon. But, in this case, the plaintiff’s stand relating to his liability to pay certain amount was not agreed to, by both the Courts below and whereupon they simply dismissed the entire suit itself. 7. The learned counsel for the defendant/respondent would submit that the defendant is a "Nidhi" and committed to honour the deposits of various depositors and if mortgagors like the plaintiff drag on the proceedings, the "Nidhi" will be in soup. 8. Be that as it may, the law has to be applied in stricto sensu. A bare perusal of Form 7 prescribed under Order 34 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure would exemplify and demonstrate, express and expatiate that based on the differences in quantum alone, the suit for redemption cannot be dismissed. After passing a preliminary decree, the quantum has to be probed into by the Commissioner appointed. However, I make it clear that before passing preliminary decree as per the said Form 7, the legal issues should be decided only by the Judge and not by Commissioner. But, both the Courts below misdirected themselves and dismissed the suit. 9. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered to the above effect and the judgments of both the Courts below are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the lower Court for proceeding as per Order 34 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the parties shall appear before the trial Court on 24. 2009. The lower Court also shall see to it that within a period of three months from 24. 2009, the matter is disposed of in the light of the observation made supra purely on merits by proceeding further and taking additional evidence if any and beefing both sides. 10. This second appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.