JUDGMENT : B.K. Ray, J. - Respondent No. 1 M/s. Rao & Sons obtained a money decree on the basis of a promote against respondent No. 2 and the present appellant. There is no dispute that under the suit promote, respondent No. 2 was the principal debtor and the appellant was a surety. After obtaining the decree, respondent No. 1 levied Ex. Case No. 139 of 1970 on the file of the Munsif, 1st Court, Cuttack against respondent No. 2 and the appellant. On the application of respondent No. 2, one of the co-judgment-debtors under section 13 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act (here in after to be referred to as the Act), an order for payment of the decretal dues by monthly instalments was passed by the executing Court. Thereafter, the decree-holder-respondent No. 1 sought to execute the decree against the surety who is the appellant in this appeal. In pursuance of a notice under Order 21 rule 22, Civil Procedure Code, the appellant-judgment-debtor No. 2 objected to the execution of the decree mainly on the ground that on the application of the judgment-debtor No. 1 an order for payment of the decretal dues by monthly instalments had been passed and as the judgment-debtor No. 1 in pursuance of the order for instalments was paying the decretal dues, the execution case cannot proceed for realisation of the entire decretal dues against judgment-debtor No. 2. The decree holder filed an objection to the petition of judgment-debtor No. 2 contending that the decree having been passed against both the judgment-debtors and there being no direction as to how the decree-holder was to proceed for realisation of the decretal dues from-the judgment-debtors and the liability of both the judgment-debtors being co-extensive, the objection raised by judgment-debtor No. 2 was not tenable in law. The executing Court dismissed the application of judgment-debtor No. 2 relying on a decision reported in Bank of Bihar v. Damodar Prasad AIR 1969 S.C. 297 . The relevant portion from the aforesaid decision is quoted herein below : "Under section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, save as provided in the contract, the liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor. The surety thus becomes liable to pay the entire amount. His liability is immediate. It is not deferred until the creditor exhausts his remedies against the principal debtor. The surety thus becomes liable to pay the entire amount. His liability is immediate. It is not deferred until the creditor exhausts his remedies against the principal debtor. In the absence of some special equity the surety has no right to restrain an action against him by the creditor on the ground that the principal is solvent or that the creditor may have relief against the principal in some other proceedings. Likewise where the, creditor has obtained a decree against the surety and the principal, the surety has no right to restrain execution against him until the creditor has exhausted his remedies against the principal." Judgment-debtor No. 2 thereafter carried an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Cuttack (vide Misc. A. No. 42 of 1971) which was also dismissed. Thereafter he has filed the present appeal. 2. Mr. R.N. Das, learned Counsel for appellant urges that there is no dispute regarding the proposition of laid down in the aforesaid decision. According to him, the Orissa Money Lenders Act 1939 has enacted to regulate money-lending transactions and to grant relief to the debtors in the State of Orissa. In the pro-note on the basis of which a decree has been passed, both the respondent No. 2 and the appellant are debtors. Under section 13 of the Act, the executing Court has been empowered to direct payment of the decretal dues by instalments. This direction may be given by the executing Court either on the application of one of the judgment-debtors or on the application of the entire body of judgment-debtors. While disposing of an application under section 13 of the Act, what the executing Court is to see is as to whether circumstances justify a direction for payment of the decretal dues by instalments. Once the Court is satisfied that circumstances exist to direct payment of the decretal dues by instalments, it can grant instalments. Therefore, once an order granting instalments has been passed by the executing Court on an application under section 13 of the Act, it ensures to the benefit of not only the judgment-debtor at whose instance instalments were granted, but to the benefit of the entire body of judgment-debtors. Therefore, once an order granting instalments has been passed by the executing Court on an application under section 13 of the Act, it ensures to the benefit of not only the judgment-debtor at whose instance instalments were granted, but to the benefit of the entire body of judgment-debtors. Therefore, as long as in pursuance of the order under section 13 of the Act instalments are paid and there is.no default, the decree-bolder has no right to proceed to recover the entire decretal dues against a co-judgment-debtor who was not a party to the application under section 13 of the Act. Mr. A.K. Rao, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, on the other hand, contends that the order of instalments passed upon an application filed by the principal debtor who is respondent No. 2 cannot ensure to the benefit of the present appellant who was not a party with respondent No. 2 in the application under section 13 of the Act. In my view, such a contention appears to be not tenable. Section 13 of the Act reads as follows "13(1) Not-with-standing anything to the contrary contained in any other law or in anything having the force of law or in any contract between the moneylender and the person to whom the loan was advanced, the Court may, for reasons to be recorded in writing at any time, on the application of a judgment-debtor, after notice to the decree-holder, direct that the amount of any decree passed before or after the commencement of this Act, in respect of a loan, including any decree in a shit relating to a mortgage by which a loan is secured, shall be paid in such number of instalments and subject to such conditions on the dates fixed by it as, having regard to the circumstances of the judgment-debtor and the amount of the decree, it considers fit." What the section contemplates is an application of a judgment-debtor. The words "a judgment-debtor" lead to the conclusion that an application for instalments can be made by one of the several co-judgment-debtors where there are more judgment-debtors than one. The words "a judgment-debtor" lead to the conclusion that an application for instalments can be made by one of the several co-judgment-debtors where there are more judgment-debtors than one. This section further provides that upon such an application being made by one of the judgment-debtors the Court after considering the circumstances direct that the amount of the decree in respect of a loan shall be paid in such number of instalments and subject to such conditions on the dates fixed by it having regard to the circumstances of the judgment-debtor and the amount of the decree. Therefore, the order which the Court has to pass on an application under section 13 of the Act is an order directing that the amount of any decree shall be paid in such number of instalments and subject to such conditions on the dates fixed by it. The Court while passing an order for instalments under section 13 of the Act has to take into consideration the conditions of the entire body of judgment-debtors even though the application for instalments has been filed by one of such judgment-debtors. It was therefore open to the decree-holder respondent No. 1 to contend before the executing Court while disposing of the application under section 13 of the Act that in view of the circumstances of both the judgment-debtors an order for instalments was not warranted. Obviously, such a contention was not raised by respondent No. 1 at the time the executing Court was hearing the parties on the application under section 13 of the Act. The order under section 13 of the Act by which instalments were granted is not under challenge and under this order, the executing Court has directed payment of the decretal amount by instalments. This order is final. It follows therefore that the decree-holder-respondent No. 1 cannot proceed to recover the entire decretal dues against the appellant as long as the order for payment of the decretal dues stands and there has been no default. The contention of Mr. R.N. Das, learned Counsel for appellant therefore prevails. 3. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The orders of both the Courts are set aside and the appellant's petition under Order 21 rule 22 read with section 47, Civil Procedure Code is allowed. The parties shall bear their respective costs throughout. Final Result : Allowed