https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465286 SC held that in mortgages other than usufructuary mortgages, both mortgagor and mortgagee may seek a final decree under Order XXXIV CPC, but sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 does not apply to usufructuary mortgages. Consequently, a usufructuary mortgagor has no right to seek extension of time for payment under that provision, rendering rejection of such an application immaterial. The Court clarified that earlier observations in another decision regarding a six-month period for deposit were case-specific and did not lay down a general limitation rule under Article 141. The mortgagor's right of redemption subsists until extinguished by law. Finding no error in the impugned judgment, the SC dismissed the appeal. en-us Wed, 15 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Dec 2025 12:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465286 SC held that in mortgages other than usufructuary mortgages, both mortgagor and mortgagee may seek a final decree under Order XXXIV CPC, but sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 does not apply to usufructuary mortgages. Consequently, a usufructuary mortgagor has no right to seek extension of time for payment under that provision, rendering rejection of such an application immaterial. The Court clarified that earlier observations in another decision regarding a six-month period for deposit were case-specific and did not lay down a general limitation rule under Article 141. The mortgagor's right of redemption subsists until extinguished by law. Finding no error in the impugned judgment, the SC dismissed the appeal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 15 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465286