The main legal point established in the judgment is that orders determining the manner of sale under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, are binding, and parties cannot raise the same matter at a later stage during execution proceedings.

Wadsworth, J.

1. This is an, appeal against an order in execution of a mortgage decree. The mortgage covered three houses with ground attached thereto and in the property the present appellants were entitled to a half share. The appellate decree made the half share of the appellants liable only to the extent of a portion of the mortgage amount with interest theron, the half share of the other defendants being liable for the full amount of the mortgage decree. In execution of the decree the decree-holder sought to bring to sale the hypotheca and asked for leave to sell the whole property in one lot owing to the difficulty 0f selling an undivided share. Notice of this application was sent to the appellants and they filed a counter-affidavit in which they pleaded that the whole property could not be brought to sale for the total liability of all the defendants together, but that only their half share in the property should be brought to sale to recover the limited amount for which the appellants were liable tinder the decree. There was also a contention that the three houses should be sold in separate lots. After a commissioner had been appointed, the Court passed an order on 17th January, 1936, in which it observes:

In order to avoid further disputes it is better that the properties are sold as one lot, and after considering the question of the value the order concludes, "the properties will be sold as one lot." The appellants thereafter asked for time to discharge the decree, waiving fresh proclamation. But on the date to which the sale was adjourned, they filed an application in which they in effect renewed the prayer put forward in their counter-affidavit to the notice to settle the terms of proclamation, pointing out that the proposal to sell the entire property for the amount due under the decree would throw a greater burden upon the half share of the appellants. In fact the object of the executing Court in approving this arrangement was to get the best price possible and to adjust the relative liabilities of the different sets of defendants out of the sale proceeds instead of taking the risk of a piecemeal sale. Though the order may be attacked as not being in accordance with the letter of the decree, it is, in my opinion, in accordance with the spirit of the decree. However, that may be, the application which the appellants put forward after they had taken time to discharge the debt has been rejected on the ground that it was barred on the principle of res judicata.

2. It is strenuously contended that the former order was not an order under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, determining the rights of the parties but a mere administrative order prescribing the manner of sale, against which there would be no appeal. Therefore it is contended that the order cannot operate as a bar to a subsequent application to adjudicate upon the right of the appellants to have their share sold only for a portion of the decree amount for which they have been held liable. It seems to me that if the order dated 17th January, 1936, is not an order falling under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, then the later order on the application of the appellants to agitate once more the contention which they had put forward at an earlier stage, must equally be held to be one not falling under Section 47 and no appeal against it would lie. I am however definitely of opinion that the order dated 17th January, 1936, is one which falls under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code. It is well established that the mere settlement of the terms of a proclamation, when no dispute between the parties as to their rights or liabilities is decided judicially, cannot be deemed to be an order under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, from which an appeal would lie. But it is equally well settled that when at the stage of settling the terms of the proclamation the parttes put into issue a question affecting their relative rights and liabilities with regard to execution and