JUDGMENT Ghose and Pargiter, JJ. - This is an appeal by the decree-holder. The facts out of which this appeal arises are shortly these: The Plaintiff decree-holder obtained a money decree in the Court of first instance, but before the time for appeal against the said decree had expired, he applied for execution of the decree. Thereupon, an application was made by the Defendant judgment-debtor for the stay of execution u/s 545 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court of first instance granted the application upon the Defendant giving security in the amount of Rs. 10,000. In accordance with the order of the Court, the security bond was executed by the Defendant, by which Certain properties were mortgaged as security for the due performance of any decree or order that might ultimately be passed. 2. It would appear that an appeal was preferred by the Defendant against, the decree of the Court of first instance, but that appeal was dismissed. Thereupon the decree-holder applied for realization of the money covered by his decree, by sale of the properties comprised in the security bond, executed by the Defendant judgment-debtor. The Court below has disallowed the application upon the ground that u/s 99, read with Section 67 of the Transfer of Property Act, the decree-holder could not bring to sale the properties in question before obtaining a decree under the provisions of the last-mentioned section of the Transfer of Property Act. Hence this appeal by the decree-holder. 3. Section 99 of the Transfer of Property Act runs as follows:--"Where a mortgagee in execution of a decree for the satisfaction of any claim, whether arising under the mortgage or not, attaches the mortgaged property, he shall not be entitled to bring such property to sale otherwise than by instituting a suit u/s 67 and he may institute such suit notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 43. 4. The question that arises before us for consideration is whether tie decree-holder is a "mortgagee" within the meaning of the section. If he be such a mortgagee, no doubt, he cannot' sell the properties comprised in the mortgage without obtaining in the first instance, a decree under the provisions of Section 67 of the Transfer of Property Act. But if otherwise, there is no bar to the decree-holder obtaining the remedy he has asked for. If he be such a mortgagee, no doubt, he cannot' sell the properties comprised in the mortgage without obtaining in the first instance, a decree under the provisions of Section 67 of the Transfer of Property Act. But if otherwise, there is no bar to the decree-holder obtaining the remedy he has asked for. Now looking at the security bond in question, it will be observed that it is not addressed to the decree-holder nor to anybody in particular; but it is in reality in favour of the Court And this seems to be clear if we read the document by the light of Clause (c) of Section 545 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That clause is as follows:--"That security has been given by the Applicant for the due performance of such degree or order his may ultimately be binding upon him," that is to say, the judgment debtor. 5. It was for the due performance of the decree or order that might ultimately be passed by the Appellate Court that the security was given and in this view of the matter, the decree-holder could not be regarded as a mortgagee in the strict sense of the term, though mo doubt in the event of the appeal being dismissed, he would be entitled to realize his decretal money by sale of the properties given in security. For these reasons we are unable to hold that the decree-holder is a mortgagee within the meaning of Section 99 of the Transfer of Property Act. It follows therefore that there is no bar to the decree-holder suing for the remedy he has asked for, in execution of his decree. 6. The result is that the order of the Court below is set aside with costs and the case sent back to that Court, so that the execution asked for may be granted.