Knox and Karamat Husain, JJ.:— Nagar Mal and others, applicants, held a decree for money against Ram Chanel. Ram Chand subsequent to the passing of that decree obtained a decree for money to be enforced by sale of property. The judgement-debtors were the holders of the decree first named. The petitioners took out execution of their decree. The court executing the decree set off the first decree against the other and marked the decree, dated the 16th of December, 1908, as discharged.
It is contended before us that this order setting off the two decrees against each other was an order passed without jurisdiction. The contention is that while the first decree is, in strict terms, a decree to recover a sum of money, the second decree is a decree for sale in enforcement of a charge against immovable property and that the Legislature in enacting rule 20 under order XXI meant to draw a distinct line of cleavage between the class of decrees contemplated in rules 18 and 19 and the class of decrees contemplated in rule 20. It has not been pointed out to us that anyone will be prejudiced by a decree of the kind contemplated by rule 20 being set off against a decree of the kind contemplated in rules 18 and 19 and vice versâ. On the other hand, the practice of setting off decrees in this way is a very salutary procedure, and it is equally open to argument that rule 20 was expressly inserted in order to make it clear that though a decree might be a decree for sale in enforcement of a mortgage or charge, it might yet be dealt with on the same lines as where both the cross decrees are decrees to recover sums of money. At any rate in the present case we see no reason for interference, and we dismiss the application with costs.
Application dismissed.