JUDGMENT
Chapman, J.
1. This appeal arises out of an order passed in proceedings for sale of the mortgaged properties after the mortgage-decree. It appears that one Sham Lal Sahu had been made a party to the mortgage suit as a puisne mortgagee in respect of one of the items of the property mortgaged, namely, Touzi No. 371. A decree was obtained and upon the mortgaged properties being ordered to be sold under the decree, Sham Lal Sahu made an application to the effect that another item of the mortgaged properties, namely Touzi No. 1707, had been purchased by him at a revenue sale, the result of which was the annulment of the mortgage. He prayed that Touzi No. 1707 should be exempted from the sale. The decree-holder at first asked that this particular property Touzi No. 1707 should be excluded from the sale and the other properties should be sold first. Thereafter the objection made by Sham Lal Sahu was summarily dismissed and the sale was subsequently held. Against the order summarily dismissing his objection an appeal has been made to this Court and there is also an application for revision.
2. A preliminary objection has been taker: that no appeal lies. I am of opinion that the objection should prevail.
3. Sham Lal Sahu was not a judgment-debtor so far as the particular property, which he desired should be exempted from sale, was concerned. So far as Touzi No. 1707 is concerned he was a third party. Section 47, therefore, does not apply. This view would be in accordance also with justice in the case, for it is quite clear that the Court was right in declining to go into the question of paramount title raised by the puisne mortgagee after the mortgage decree and if we were to hold that such a case falls within Section 47, the result would be that we should have to say that the Court was right in summarily dismissing the claim and that also the claimant would be debarred from filing another suit. But subject to what may be considered by the Court which will have to decide the question, I am disposed to say at present that there is no objection to the appellant filing a suit for the declaration of his paramount title.
4. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
5. The application for revision is rejected.
Roe, J.
6. I agree.