P.N. Mookerjee, J. - (1.) This appeal is by the surety judgment -debtor and is directed against a concurrent order of the two Courts below rejecting, in substance; his objection to the execution, started by the decree -holder bank against the said surety.
(2.) In the view we are taking, it is not necessary to go into the facts in any great detail. Suffice it to say that in the first Court the objections of the surety judgment -debtor to the present execution, both on the question of irregularity for non -issue and non -service of notice under Order 21, Rule 22 of the Code and also on the ground of limitation were rejected, but relief was given to him as regards the amount under execution by limiting the execution only to the extent of his liability under the surety bond instead of the entire decretal dues and costs of execution as prayed for by the decree -holder. That order was affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge.
(3.) Before us, both the above points have been urged in support of this appeal, namely, the point of irregularity under Order 21, Rule 22 and also the point of limitation.;