JUDGMENT

Rankin, C.J. - This was a mortgage suit instituted in 1923 and the subject matter of the mortgage appears to be a rice mill and certain properties connected therewith. It is unnecessary to go into details as to the parties defendants in the suit. It is enough to say that there were three defendants and that, on 2nd December 1924, there was a compromise decree according to which one of the parties was to continue in possession as receiver and certain payments were to be made-one payment was to be made immediately and the other payments were to be made in stated instalments. There was a provision in the decree as to the meaning of which some question now arises to the effect that

in default of payment of two consecutive instalments by the receiver and in breach of the terms mentioned in Clause (D),

that was the covenant to insure

the plaintiff will be able to execute the decree without making it absolute as against any or all of these defendants.

2. Now an application for execution of the decree was filed on 14th January 1927 and, instead of noticing that more than a year had elapsed since the date of the decree and instead of issuing notice under Order 21, Rule 22, Civil P.C., t