It is manifest from the order, dated 22-12-1994 passed by the learned Special Judge, Banking that the question as to whether in an application moved by the judgment-debtor under section 47, C.P.C. He was required to furnish security/surety under Order 21, Rule 23-A, C.P.C. Was kept open and the learned counsel for the petitioners was directed to satisfy the Court on the next date of hearing as to whether furnishing of such security was necessary in such an application. On the next date of hearing i.e. 7-2-1995 the learned Special Judge, Banking proceeded to pass order for dismissal of the objection petition made under section 47, C.P.C. By the petitioners summarily observing that they had failed to furnish security as required by Order 21, rule 23(A), C.P.C., without determining that even if the petitioners were held to be liable to furnish security in the said objection petition it was the Court which was to pass an express order for furnishing of security and nature of quantum etc. The Court has passed the order for the attachment of the property in execution of decree and fixed the next date as 30-4-1995.
2. The learned Special Judge, Banking shall in the first instance determine the question as to whether the petitioners in such an objection petition would be liable to furnish security as envisaged by Order 21, Rule 23-A, C.P.C. And if it comes to the conclusion that they were bound to do so it shall pass an express order giving specific date on or before which they shall furnish the security, the amount of security as also the nature thereof and further proceedings in the case shall not be taken unless this direction is complied with.
3. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.