' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---Both the parties filed suits for recovery of money against each other.
Both the suits were decreed. After adjustment and set off respondents filed execution for recovery of Rs.4,57,967.63. Meanwhile the appellant filed Regular First Appeal No,195 of 1995 against the decree passed in favour of the respondents. The appeal came up before a learned Division Bench of this Court on 11-12-1996, when according to both the learned counsel present following order was passed:-- "The decree being a money decree, therefore, we shall allow the respondents to execute the same passed in their favour and recover the decretal amount from the appellant after furnishing Bank Guarantee for payment of the amount so recovered in accordance with the judgment of this Court in this appeal. This C.M. Is disposed of".
' The respondents furnished a Bank Guarantee and sought execution of the decree. The appellant objected that the guarantee is not in terms of the said order rather it is only for a period of one year. Objection was overruled by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 15-1-1998.
2. Both the learned counsel have advanced some arguments. Learned counsel for the respondents states that his clients are ready to furnish a Bank Guarantee in strict terms of the said order dated 11-12-1996.
3. This being so, F.A.O. Is disposed of and the respondents upon furnishing a Bank Guarantee in terms stated in the said order i.e. "for payment of the amount so recovered in accordance with the judgment of this Court in said R.F.A.", shall be entitled to execution of decree and to recover the decretal amount from the appellant. We may note here that it has been stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the said R.F.A. Filed by the appellant had been dismissed for non- prosecution and had not been restored so far. If this is so, the respondents may proceed accordingly.