Security in execution proceedings may be required, but the mode must be reasonable; bank guarantee can replace cash deposit.

In execution under Order XXI Rule 40(2), the court may require a judgment-debtor to furnish security where material shows means to satisfy a money decree and neglect to pay it. That power, however, must be exercised reasonably and proportionately. Requiring a cash deposit of the full decretal amount was held arbitrary where a bank guarantee would equally protect the decree-holder's interest. The direction to furnish security was therefore sustained, but the mode of compliance was modified to permit a bank guarantee instead of cash deposit.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in execution proceedings under Order XXI Rule 40(2), the judgment-debtor could be directed to furnish security for the decretal amount and whether the security could be insisted upon by way of cash deposit or ought to be permitted by bank guarantee.

Analysis: The execution court found material indicating that the judgment-debtor had means to satisfy the money decree and had nevertheless neglected to do so. On that basis, the direction to furnish security was justified in principle. However, requiring cash deposit of the entire amount was held to be unreasonable and arbitrary, because a bank guarantee of the same amount would sufficiently secure the decree-holder's interest without imposing a cumbersome mode of compliance. The order was therefore interfered with only to the limited extent of the mode of security.

Conclusion: The direction to furnish security was upheld, but it was modified so that the petitioner may furnish a bank guarantee instead of making a cash deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the judgment-debtor is found to have means and to have neglected payment of a money decree, the court may require security under Order XXI Rule 40(2), but the mode of security must be reasonable and proportionate, and a cash deposit may be substituted by a bank guarantee where that adequately protects the decree-holder.

---