JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. - By a decree, dated the 17th of March 1888, made in the present suit, which was a suit to enforce a mortgage, it was ordered:-- "That the suit be decreed; that the Defendant do deposit the total amount of Rs. 15,459-3 annas in the Court, Rs. 14,595 being the amount claimed by the Plaintiff and Rs. 864-3 annas being the amount of costs, within six months' time from the date of the decree, that if the Defendant fails to deposit the same within the said time fixed, the decretal debt be realised by sale of the property under mortgage; and if there remains any surplus sale-proceeds, it shall be returned to the judgment-debtor; and that the Defendant do pay to the Plaintiffs Rs. 14,595 under claim, and Rs. 864-3 annas on account of costs, in all Rs. 15,459-3 together with interest at 6 per cent. per annum from the date of institution of the suit until realization. It is clear from the terms of that decree that there was a personal decree against the Defendant for the payment of the sum of Rs. 15,459 in all. The property was put up for sale on the 17th of December 1888, and was sold for Rs. 5,015 the decree-holders being the purchasers; and the sale was confirmed on the 22nd of February 1889. The decree not having been fully satisfied, the decree-holders proceeded against other properties of the judgment-debtor, and those properties were sold for Rs. 1,450 and the decree-holders again purchased them. The sale took place on the 20th of May 1889, and was confirmed on the 25th of June. The benefit of the decree was subsequently assigned to the predecessors in title of the present Appellants. The assignees of the decree then applied for further execution of it against other properties of the judgment-debtor, and the same were attached. It is clear that these proceedings in execution could only have been taken, and were only taken, upon the footing that there was a personal decree against the judgment-debtor for the whole of the mortgage debt. On the 10th of November 1896, the judgment-debtor objected that the decree did not provide for the decree-holders proceeding against properties other than the mortgaged ones, and, that the execution could not proceed unless a decree were obtained under sec. 90 of the Transfer of Property Act. On the 10th of November 1896, the judgment-debtor objected that the decree did not provide for the decree-holders proceeding against properties other than the mortgaged ones, and, that the execution could not proceed unless a decree were obtained under sec. 90 of the Transfer of Property Act. In consequence of that objection, the last execution proceedings were not proceeded with, though the attachment remained in force : no order apparently was made upon this objection raised by the judgment-debtor. On the 4th of June 1898, the present application was made by the decree-holders asking for a decree under sec. 90 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court below made a decree under sec. 90, and the judgment-debtors, although they insisted that such a decree was necessary, have now appealed against its having been made. 2. The only question argued before us is whether that order ought to have been made. In my opinion, sec. 90 contemplates the making of a supplemental decree in the special case provided for by that section, namely, the nett proceeds of any sale of the mortgaged property proving insufficient to pay the amount due for the time being on the mortgage, and does not apply to a case where the original decree is a personal one against the mortgagor, under which the mortgagee can, in execution, proceed against any property of the mortgagor other than that comprised in the mortgage. It does not seem reasonable that a Court should make a supplemental decree under sec. 90, when the decree-holder can obtain all he wants by putting in force an existing decree in his favour, against the judgment-debtor. No order under sec. 90 was necessary, and, if not necessary, I do not think it ought to have been made. The appeal, therefore, must be allowed and the order of the Court below discharged. But under the circumstances of the case we give no costs either in this Court or in the Court below.