Short Note : 1. The judgment-debtor, who, due to financial troubles, was not in a position to run the factory known as J. B. Mangharam and Company Pvt. Ltd. manufacturing biscuits and confectioners entered into an agreement with one other concern, M/s. Nandanvan Manufacturers and Traders Pvt. Ltd., the present applicant on 18-10-76. According to the terms of the said agreement, tile existence of which is not in dispute, M/s. Nandanvan Manufacturers and Traders Pvt. Ltd., the applicant had taken up the business and is conducting the same under an obligation to pay a sum of Rs. 8 lacs per annum in 12 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 66,666 becoming due on the 5th of each English calendar month. 2. The contention raised by Shri N. P. Mittal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, was that though there is already an obligation on the applicant to pay certain amount by the 5th of every month to the judgment. debtor and that the said amount is also a fixed and ascertained sum, the same is not covered by the term 'debt' as used in O. 21, R. 46 CPC, and, therefore, the provisions of the said order are not applicable to the present case. The argument was that it was not a transaction of loan and, therefore, the applicant could not be treated as a garnishee. Held : It is true that from the contents of the agreement dated 18-10-76, it is evident that the amount which is payable by the applicant to the judgment-debtor is not in the nature of repayment of a loan, but this in itself is not sufficient to hold that the same is not a debt. Every loan is always a debt but every dent is not necessarily a loan. Various fixed and ascertained amounts payable either in present or in future under a present obligation may be covered by the term 'debt' though they may not be actually in the nature of a loan. In the instant case, the existence of the present obligation to pay is not in dispute. What is to be paid is also a fixed and ascertained sum. The mode and manner of payment is also specific. Under these circumstances, how can it be said that the provisions of O. 21, R. 46 CPC will not apply, 3. In the instant case, the existence of the present obligation to pay is not in dispute. What is to be paid is also a fixed and ascertained sum. The mode and manner of payment is also specific. Under these circumstances, how can it be said that the provisions of O. 21, R. 46 CPC will not apply, 3. In the opinion of this Court, once there is a present obligation to pay certain ascertained sum towards a liability which may be payable at present or in future by instalments, the matter is fully covered by the term 'debt' as used in O.21, R. 46 CPC and the orders made by the executing Courts in the aforeside case cannot be held to be invalid on the ground that the amount payable by the applicant to the judgment-debtor did not fall within the ambit to the term 'debt' or that the status of the applicant was not that of a garnishee. A debt is a liability to pay in present or In future an ascertained sum of money. It thus means a pecuniary liability whether payable presently or in future of course under an existing obligation. The objection, therefore, is rejected. Revision dismissed.