JUDGMENT Mushtaq Ahmad, J.
1. We do not propose to interfere in this revision. The parties made a joint statement that a sum of Rs. 300 was dug under the two mortgages. Moreover, the facts of this case are distinguishable from the facts of the two other cases that we have just decided. In this case a sum of Rs. 300 was borrowed under a mortgage dated 12th May 1882, and some property was given in security. On the security of the same property there was a further advance of Rs. 231-9-9, and this second advance was tacked on to the first advance and the mortgage deed provided that the mortgagor would not be entitled to redeem the first mortgage without paying the amount, due under the second mortgage. The two documents, therefore, practically constituted a single transaction.
2. We therefore dismiss this application, but make no order as to costs.