- (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the District Judge, Ju (sic), dated May 18, J989, whereby at the time of the admission of the appeal, the execution of the money decree was stayed. if the judgment debtors furnished Bank guarantee equivalent to the decretal amount before the executing Court within a month failing which the stay order was to stand vacated automatically.
(2.) AT the time of the motion bearing, it was con fended that the impugned order is based upon the non consideration of Order XXXIV" Rule 4 sub rule (1) and Order XLI Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure, (hereinafter called the Code)
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the decree is based upon the property mortgaged, sufficient security was already there with the Bank decree-holder and, therefore,, the question of furnishing Bank Guarantee did not arise. According to the learned counsel, the decretal amount could be realised ft cm the sale of the mortgaged property. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the decree-holder Bank submitted that the decree is only for recovery of the amount and is not under order XXXIV Rule 4. as provided' under the Code Moreover, argued the learned counsel, Oreer XLI Rule 6 is attracted, before the executing Court and rot in the appellate Court where the appeal is pending.;