Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Altamas Kabir and Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT

Altamas Kabir, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. On 28^th May, 1986, the Respondent No. 1 Bank sanctioned a loan of Rs. 83,000/- to Shri Durga Prasad, the Respondent No. 2 herein. The appellant stood guarantee for the Principal Debtor for repayment of the loan.

3. As the loan was not repaid by the Principal Debtor, Durga Prasad, the Bank in 1992 filed Suit No. 66 of 1992 for recovery of its dues against the respondent No. 2 in his capacity as the loanee and against the appellant in his capacity as guarantor. The suit was decreed on 19^th December, 1994, by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bayana, District- Bharatpur, in favour of the respondent No. 1 `Bank for a sum of Rs. 1,10,360/-, together with interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization. While decreeing the suit, the trial Court directed as follows:

The plaintiff shall be entitled to recover this amount by auction sale of the hypothecated Matador Mahindra FC RRD/1851. The plaintiff shall also be entitled for cost of litigation. If any amount remains to be paid even after auction sale of the Matador, then the same shall be recovered from other properties of the defendants. The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed against the defendants in the aforesaid terms.

4. The aforesaid directions have created some confusion in the execution of the decree.

5. For the purpose of executing the decree the respondent No. 1 Bank initiated execution proceedings and though warrants for attachment of the Matador were issued, the same were not executed by the Bank on the ground that the vehicle was not traceable and instead the Bank sought attachment of the appellant's Fixed Deposits with the said Bank made with the amounts received by him by way of pension and gratuity. The Executing Court allowed the Bank's application and ordered attachment of the appellant's Fixed Deposit Receipts, hereinafter referred to as "FDRs". The appellant moved the High Court against the order of attachment and the High Court while allowing the appellant's application, directed the trial Court to pass appropriate orders in the light of the specific directions given in the judgment and decree dated 19^th December, 1994, for recovery of the decretal amount. The Executing Court by its order dated 1^st November, 2002, directed release of the appellant's F.D.Rs and the pension amount with a further direction that the hypothecated Matador was to be auctioned first in terms of the directions contained in paragraph 11 of the Judgment dated 19^th December, 1994. The Executing Court also took the view that amounts paid towards gratuity and pension could not be attached in view of the provisions of proviso (g) of Section 60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as "the Code".

6. The Bank filed a Revision Petition against the said order of the Executing Court dated 1^st November, 2002, and also applied for interim orders therein. On 15^th October, 2003, when the matter came up before the High Court, the appellant herein was directed to forthwith deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with the Bank. He was also dire........