1. These proceedings arose from a decree made upon a mortgage in accordance with a compromise. That compromise provided that if the amount due under the mortgage was not realised by sale of the mortgaged properties the other properties of the judgment-debtor should be pursued in due course. The properties covered by the mortgage were sold. It is not contested that there is a balance outstanding, but on the decree-holders seeking to proceed against the other properties of the judgment-debtor two objections were made, firstly, that the judgment-debtors were minors and could not be pursued without guardians, and, secondly, that there had not been any order under Rule 6 of Order XXXIV and until that order was made no proceedings against properties other than the mortgaged properties could be taken.

2. In the first objection, there appears, on the merits, to be no substance whatsoever, but there is substance in the contention that the making of a formal order under Rule 6 is a necessary preliminary to pursue properties not covered by the mortgage. This has been the universal view taken, and the position is not altered by the fact that the original decree was a compromise decree. All that that compromise in effect does is to create an undertaking on the part of the judgment-debtor not to contest an order under Rule 6. The benefit of an order under Rule 6 is that a proper account is taken, the parties know exactly where they stand, and the proceedings are in order. As at present framed the proceedings are not in order. We, therefore, direct that a proper order be made under Rule 6, stating the amount of the indebtedness of the judgment-debtor and formally authorizing the decree-holder to proceed against the properties not covered by the mortgage.