The order of the District Judge cannot be, sustained. He is in error in holding that an account of the profits of the land should now be taken for the purpose of being set off against the amount decreed. This is going behind the decree instead of executing it as it stands. The District Judge is also wrong in holding that the present application cannot be granted, in the absence of a prior order absolute for sale. It is stated by the appellant that such an order for sale was passed on the 13th December, 1897, but whether that is so or not, the present application, in which the decree-holder states that there has been default in payment of the decree amount and applies for sale, is in our opinion an application for an order absolute for sale.
The respondent raises before us several objections by way of limitation and otherwise, to the grant of the application, but these are not matters which we need decide at this stage.
We allow the second appeal, with costs, and remand the appeal to the District Judge for disposal according to law.