Assignee decree-holder may continue final decree proceedings; res judicata and mortgage law did not bar a further final decree.

A person claiming under the original decree-holder may be impleaded and permitted to continue final decree proceedings in a mortgage suit where the decree has not been fully worked out. Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure was applied liberally to allow a transferee or assignee to proceed, and objections already decided at an earlier stage could not be reopened between stages of the same litigation by virtue of res judicata. The court also stated that mortgage law does not bar more than one final decree where the suit has not been completely disposed of, so the assignee decree-holder was entitled to proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a subsequent purchaser or assignee of the decree-holder could be impleaded and permitted to proceed in final decree proceedings in a mortgage suit, and whether the objection that more than one final decree could not be passed was sustainable.

Analysis: The final decree proceedings had not been completely worked out, as the mortgage debt had not been discharged and the title deeds had not been handed over. The order allowing impleadment of the assignee decree-holder had already attained finality, no challenge having been taken to it. The same objections could not be reagitated at a later stage in view of res judicata as between stages of the same litigation. Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure was applied to permit proceedings by a person claiming under the original decree-holder, and the provision was construed liberally to advance justice. The Court also held that the mortgage law did not prohibit more than one final decree where the suit had not been completely disposed of.

Conclusion: The objections were rejected and the assignee decree-holder was entitled to proceed in the final decree proceedings; the contention that there could not be two final decrees failed.

---