https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313278 The High Court's decision by Mr. Justice Ross, which excluded tenant defendants from a mortgage redemption suit, was overturned. The appellate court reinstated the District Judge's decree, affirming the inclusion of tenant defendants as proper parties under Order 34 Rule 1 CPC. The plaintiff's right to redeem the zarpeshgi mortgage was upheld, and costs for the appeals were awarded to the plaintiff. Justice B.K. Mullick concurred with the decision, emphasizing the necessity of addressing all relevant parties in mortgage suits to avoid multiple proceedings. en-us Wed, 14 Nov 1923 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Apr 2024 17:00:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313278 The High Court's decision by Mr. Justice Ross, which excluded tenant defendants from a mortgage redemption suit, was overturned. The appellate court reinstated the District Judge's decree, affirming the inclusion of tenant defendants as proper parties under Order 34 Rule 1 CPC. The plaintiff's right to redeem the zarpeshgi mortgage was upheld, and costs for the appeals were awarded to the plaintiff. Justice B.K. Mullick concurred with the decision, emphasizing the necessity of addressing all relevant parties in mortgage suits to avoid multiple proceedings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 14 Nov 1923 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313278