Judgment :- 1. This revision petition is against the order made by the executing court on 5-11-1985 in EP No. 436/84 in OS No. 463/82. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this case may briefly be stated as follows. Respondents 1 and 2 instituted the suit against respondent No. 3 for a money decree During the pendency of the suit respondents 1 and 2 made an application under 0.38 rule I of the CPC for the issue of a warrant of arrest of respondent No. 3 and to bring him before court to show cause why be should not furnish security for his appearance. In pursuance of the notice issued under 0.38 R.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure respondent No. 3 appeared and furnished the petitioners as sureties. The petitioners executed a bond as required by 0.38 rule I of the CPC binding themselves in default of appearance of the third respondent to pay up to a sum of Rs. 6337.52. The suit was ultimately decreed in favour of respondents 1 and 2 and they made an application to recover the decretal amount from the petitioners by enforcing the bond executed by them. The petitioners resisted the application contending that no decree having been passed against them, they are not liable to satisfy the decree to the extent of the amount stipulated in the bond, the third respondent, the judgment debtor not having made any default in appearing before court either during the trial of the suit or during the execution proceedings. The executing court over-ruled the objections of the petitioners and directed that the petitioners be impleaded in the execution petition and further steps be taken to enforce the decree against them on the basis of the bond executed by them. It is the said decision that is challenged in this revision petition. 2. Sri. Nandakumara Menon, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the court below committed an error in taking the view that respondents 1 and 2, the decree-holders can enforce the bond executed by the petitioners for satisfying the decree obtained by them as if the petitioners are sureties who have undertaken to satisfy the decree. 2. Sri. Nandakumara Menon, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the court below committed an error in taking the view that respondents 1 and 2, the decree-holders can enforce the bond executed by the petitioners for satisfying the decree obtained by them as if the petitioners are sureties who have undertaken to satisfy the decree. It was submitted that by executing the bond they have undertaken to ensure the presence of respondent No. 3 and as long as respondent No. 3 does not commit any default in appearing before the court, respondents 1 and 2 cannot enforce the bonds executed by the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the bond has been executed not only for the purpose of ensuring the presence of respondent No. 3 but also for the purpose of satisfying the decree to the extent of the amount stipulated in the bond and that therefore they are entitled to enforce the bond for satisfying the decree, notwithstanding the fact that the third respondent has not committed any default in appearing before the court. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 relied upon the decision of the Rajasthan High Court reported in AIR. 1960 Rajasthan 319 between Hazarilal and another v. Chhaju Ram and Others. That was a case in which a surety was executed for due performance of the decree, which the court held, is enforcible having regard to S.145 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But this is a case of enforcement of a bond executed under 0.38 R.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence the decision of the Rajasthan High Court is of no assistance in deciding the issue that has arisen for consideration in this case. 3. It is not disputed that the bonds were executed by the petitioners in proceedings that were initiated by respondents I and 2 under 0.38 R.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 0.38 R.1 of the CPC reads: 1. 3. It is not disputed that the bonds were executed by the petitioners in proceedings that were initiated by respondents I and 2 under 0.38 R.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 0.38 R.1 of the CPC reads: 1. Where defendant may be called upon to furnish security for appearance: Where at any stage of a suit, other than a suit of the nature referred to in S.16, clauses (a) to (d), the court is satisfied, by affidavit or otherwise, (a) that the defendant, with intent to delay the plaintiff, or to avoid any process of the court or to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him, (i) has absconded or left the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court, or (ii) is about to abscond or leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court, or (iii) has disposed of or removed from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court his property or any part thereof, or (iv) that the defendant is about to leave India under circumstances affording reasonable probability that the plaintiff will or may thereby be obstructed or delayed in the execution of any decree that may be passed against the defendant in the suit, he court may issue a warrant to arrest the defendant and bring him before the court to show cause why he should not furnish security for his appearance. Provided that the defendant shall not be arrested if he pays to the officer entrusted with the execution of the warrant any sum specified in the warrant as sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff's claim; and such sum shall be held in deposit by the court until the suit is disposed of or until further order of the court." It is clear from the provisions of 0.38 R.1 that it is an enabling provision which could be invoked for the purpose of ensuring the presence of the defendant. The Court, if it is satisfied that the conditions specified in the said provision are satisfied, is entitled to issue a warrant of arrest to the defendant and bring him before court to show cause why he should not furnish security for his appearance. The Court, if it is satisfied that the conditions specified in the said provision are satisfied, is entitled to issue a warrant of arrest to the defendant and bring him before court to show cause why he should not furnish security for his appearance. The proviso to R.1 of 0.38 however says that the defendant shall not be arrested if he pays to the officer entrusted with the execution of the warrant any sum specified in the warrant as sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff's claim. R.2 to 0.38 which is relevant for the discussion deals with furnishing of the security and reads as follows: "Security: (1) Where the defendant fails to show such cause the court shall order him either to deposit in court money or other property sufficient to answer the claim against him or to furnish security for his appearance at any time when called upon while the suit is pending and until satisfaction of any decree that may be passed against him in the suit, or make such order as it thinks fit in regard to the sum which may have been paid by the defendant under the proviso to the last preceding rule. (2) Every surety for the appearance of a defendant shall bind himself, in default of such appearance, to pay any sum of money which the defendant may be ordered to pay in the suit." It is clear from this provision that where the defendant fails to show cause in response to the notice issued to him under 0.38 R.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court can order the defendant to deposit in the court money or other property sufficient to answer the plaintiff's claim or to furnish security for his appearance at any time when called upon while the suit is pending and until satisfaction of any decree that may be passed against him in the suit. It is therefore clear that the furnishing of security contemplated is for securing the appearance of the defendant at any time when called upon during the pendency of the suit or on decree being passed till the satisfaction of the decree. It is therefore clear that the furnishing of security contemplated is for securing the appearance of the defendant at any time when called upon during the pendency of the suit or on decree being passed till the satisfaction of the decree. Clause (2) of R.2 of 0.38 makes it clear that the surety to be furnished is for the appearance of the defendant entitling the court to enforce the bond in the event of default being committed by the defendant in appearing before the court. The Form of the bond to be executed under 0.38 R.2 is Form No. 2 of Appendix F, relevant portion of which reads: " Therefore I have voluntarily become surety and do hereby bind myself, my heirs and executors, to the said court, that the said defendant shall appear at any time when called upon while the suit is pending and until satisfaction of any decree that may be passed against him in the said suit; and in default of such appearance I bind myself, my heirs and executors, to pay to the said court, at its order, any sum of money that may be adjudged against the said defendant in the said suit." The scheme of 0.38 R.1 and 2 and the form in which the bond has to be executed make it abundantly clear that the bond executed by the sureties can be enforced only when default is committed by the defendant in his appearance, as the bond is required to be executed only for the limited purpose of securing the presence of the defendant during the pendency of the suit and until satisfaction of the decree, if one is passed. T have therefore no hesitation in taking the view that the bonds executed under 0.38 R.2 CPC in this case could be enforced by respondents I and 2 only if the condition precedent is satisfied viz., that the third respondent judgment debtor commits default in appearing before the court whenever called upon to do so. 4. But it was contended by learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 that having regard to the terms of the bond in question I must hold that the bond is executed not for the purpose of enforcing the presence of respondent No. 3 but for the purpose of satisfying the decree. It is not possible to accept this contention. 4. But it was contended by learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 that having regard to the terms of the bond in question I must hold that the bond is executed not for the purpose of enforcing the presence of respondent No. 3 but for the purpose of satisfying the decree. It is not possible to accept this contention. It is not disputed that the bond has been executed in proceedings initiated under 0.38 R.1 CPC. Having regard to the requirement of R.2 of 0.38 what is contemplated is a bond to be executed by the surety for securing the continued presence of the defendant. Hence whatever be the inadequacies in the language employed in the bond executed, as long as the bond has been executed under 0.38 R.2 of the CPC it roust be understood as a bond executed for the purpose of securing the presence of the defendant during the pendency of the suit and after the decree is made till the satisfaction of the decree, I have therefore no hesitation in construing the bonds executed by the petitioners as undertaking to pay the amount specified therein only in the event of their committing a. default in securing the presence of the third respondent during the pendency of the suit and till the satisfaction of the decree. 5. So far as the condition precedent for enforcing the bond in this case is concerned, it is not the case of respondents 1 and 2 that the third respondent has committed default at any time during the pendency of the suit before the decree was passed or at any time during the pendency of the execution proceedings after the decree was passed till the satisfaction of the decree. That being the position, the condition precedent has not been satisfied in this case. The court below was, therefore; clearly in error in directing that, the petitioners should be impleaded in the execution proceedings. I, however, make it clear that until the decree is actually satisfied the petitioners are bound to secure the presence of the third respondent and therefore the bond can be enforced, if default is committed by the third respondent in appearing before court, till the satisfaction of the decree. For the reasons stated above this revision petition is allowed and the order of the court below is set aside. No costs.