JUDGMENT
The respondent obtained a decree for foreclosure under section 86, Transfer of Property Act, and the time limited for redemption by the defendant having expired without being extended. The respondent applied under section 87 for an order absolutely debarring the defendant from redeeming and for an order for delivery of possession of the property to him. The orders were accordingly made? It is contended by the appellant that the orders are null and void because no notice of the application was given to the defendant, appellant and the case of Narayana Reddi v. Papayya is relied upon. That case, no doubt, supports the contention, but that decision proceeds upon the view that the defendant could apply for an extension of the time for redemption only if and when the plaintiff applies for an order absolute under the second paragraph of section 87, a view which has been dissented from by the Full Bench in Vedapuratti v. Vallabha Valiya Rajah . Following the decision of the majority of the Full Bench in the case of Mallikarjunadu Setti…(Counter-Petitioner) v. Lingamurti Pantulu…(Petitioner) .* which related to proceedings under section 89 of the Transfer of Property Act, we told that the same view is applicable to proceedings under section 87, end that such proceedings are proceedings in execution of the decree passed under section 86 of that Act. In the present case the application was made within one year of the date of decree and therefore under section 248, Civil Procedure Code, no notice was necessary to the judgment-debtor (defendant).