1. ZACAULLAH LODH1, ACTG. C. J.-After we had heard the Appeal at some length, we realised that the questions of law required interpretation in this appeal are common in the suit as well. It would thus be proper to leave it open to the learned Single Judge who would try the suit to interpret the points of law raised before us today, in the suit and pass a final verdict, as otherwise, if a judgment is given by us in this Appeal which is filed against the interim order the findings of the learned Single Judge would certainly be prejudiced. Presently the main question before us is that of discharge or otherwise of the security submitted by respondent No. 3 in the form of Bank Guarantee under the orders of this Court dated 21st December, 1980. The learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the effect to continuance of the security would be that the respondent shall have he bear the interest on the amount of security for further period and he would receive no recompense for the same if he succeeds in the suit. Release of Bank Guarantee at this stage would not be proper as in that case no security would be left to protect the claim of the plaintiff in the suit and it would be difficult for him to realise the decretal amount in can a decree is passed in his favour. However, to resolve this controversy all the learned counsel as well as the learned Advocate-General agree that if the respondent No. 3 furnishes security of the same amount by depositing the original title deed of the property with the Registrar of this Court, the Bank guarantee may be released. If that is done, the Registrar shall inform the concened Registrar not to dispose of this property or allow the creation of any lien thereon, unless directed by this Court.
2. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.