https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279753 Interim payments made by a receiver under prior consent and confirming orders were treated as binding and not open to collateral challenge, so recovery of those sums was rejected; however, a direction requiring future payments from assets outside the plaintiffs' security was set aside as beyond jurisdiction because the necessary parties were absent. A mortgagee who had already obtained a personal decree could not later enforce the same mortgage security, as the omitted relief was barred by Order 2, Rule 2, and the mortgage provisions in Order 34 were held to apply only to mortgages of immovable property. The mortgagee's remaining position was limited to redemption rights and any surplus sale proceeds. en-us Sun, 31 Aug 1952 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Apr 2019 10:00:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279753 Interim payments made by a receiver under prior consent and confirming orders were treated as binding and not open to collateral challenge, so recovery of those sums was rejected; however, a direction requiring future payments from assets outside the plaintiffs' security was set aside as beyond jurisdiction because the necessary parties were absent. A mortgagee who had already obtained a personal decree could not later enforce the same mortgage security, as the omitted relief was barred by Order 2, Rule 2, and the mortgage provisions in Order 34 were held to apply only to mortgages of immovable property. The mortgagee's remaining position was limited to redemption rights and any surplus sale proceeds. Case-Laws Indian Laws Sun, 31 Aug 1952 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279753