Yogeshwar Dayal, J. - (1.) Special leave granted.
(2.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 23rd April, 1990 whereby the High Court was pleased to dismiss the revision petition filed by the appellant-Bank against the judgment of the Additional District Judge Delhi dated 5th May, 1989 whereby the Additional District Judge, Delhi, relying upon the decision of this Court in Union Bank of India v. Manku Narayana, AIR 1987 SC 1078, dismissed the Execution Application No. 39 of 1985 against respondent No. 4 (Judgment debtor-Guarantor).
(3.) The question involved in the appeal really is whether the said decision is correct. In Manku Narayana's case, (supra), Para 4 (supra) this Court took the view that: "The decree in execution is a composite decree, personally against the defendants including the respondent and also against the mortgaged property. We do not pause to consider whether the two portions of the decree are severable or not. We are of the view that since a portion of the decreed amount is covered by the mortgage, the decree-holder Bank has to proceed against the mortgaged property first and then proceed Against the guarantor. Since the High Court was not told that such steps were taken, we do not think we will be justified in holding that the High Court was in error in making the direction which is under challenge before us." ;