1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners against the dismissal of their writ petition by the High Court. It had arisen out of a property which purported to he evacuee land.
2. ' The land in dispute, according to the petitioners, belonged to them. It was mortgaged with one Tola Ram, evacuee who obtained a decree for foreclosure against the petitioners. That decree, according to the learned counsel, became final in 1945. The petitioners' side, it is evident from the record, was a party to that suit. On account of the said decree, the property in dispute has been treated as evacuee and dealt with accordingly.
3. ' Notwithstanding the said decree, the petitioners' side filed application for redemption of mortgage somewhere in 1946 under section 4 of the Punjab Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1938. This application finally now stands dismissed by the impugned judgment of the High Court mainly on the ground that the decree obtained by Tola Ram and which became final in 1945 against the petitioners, was a complete bar. Leave to appeal accordingly has now been sought.
4. ' Learned counsel has relied on section 2 of the said Act which reads as follows:-- "2. Notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment for the time being in force, this Act shall apply to any subsisting mortgages of land, which were effected prior to 8th June, 1901.
5. ' Explanation.--A mortgage shall he deemed to subsisting notwithstanding a decree or order for its redemption having been passed provided redemption has not taken place before the commencement of this Act."
6. According to him, notwithstanding any other law or any decree to the contrary, the mortgages subsisting in 1938 were to be dealt with only under the said Act through an application for redemption thereof.
7. ' We do not agree with the learned counsel. Section 2 does not exclude decrees obtained by the mortgagees through foreclosure. The explanation to section 2 does exclude the decrees for redemption but it does not exclude a decree for foreclosure. When confronted with this position, the learned counsel remained unable to render any satisfactory explanation or answer. That being so, we in the circumstances, refuse to grant leave to appeal. The petition, therefore, is dismissed.