Mr. Y. K. Sabharwal, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the orderdated 20/04/1992 made by Additional District Judge dismissing theapplication of the appellant, State Bank of Mysore filed under Order 21 Rule46-A, Civil Procedure Code and directing the bank to deposit the amount of F. D. R. withinterest in the said Court as soon as possible but not later than seven daysfrom the date of the order. Briefly, the facts are these :- ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 Surjit Kaur obtained a decree on the basis ofaward against J. S. Butalia, Proprietor of Jayes International on 31/09/1991. Reference to arbitration was make on 18/07/1991. On 2 8/08/1991 an award was made in favour of respondent No. 1 and againstrespondent No. 2 and the award was made rule of the Court and decreepassed in terms thereof on 3/09/1991, Respondent No. 2-judgment-debtor stated before the arbitrator that the amount of the F. D. R. berecovered from the bank to satisfy the award and it was so recorded in theaward. Immediately thereafter i. e. on or about 12/09/1991 theexecution petition was filed by respondent No. 1 against respondent No. 2seeking attachment of the amount of F. D. R. including interest due thereupontill date. The F. D. R. was with State Bank of Mysore. A prohibitory orderwas passed by the Executing Court on 15/09/1991. ( 3 ) THE stand of the Bank before the Executing Court was that F. D. R. for Rs. 55,906. 90 favouring respondent No. 2 was under its general lien forliabilities of respondent No. 2 towards the bank and there is no credit balanceavailable with the bank for being remitted in terms of the order of the Court. As the Garnishee order had been served on the bank it filed objections underorder 21 Rule 46-A, Civil Procedure Code inter-alia, stating that respondent No. 2 the judgment debtor owed a huge sum to the bank and a suit for recovery ofhad been filed on 11/05/1990 against him by the bank in the Court ofrs. 8,24,369. 00 Senior Sub-Judge, Gurgaon. which was pending. 8,24,369. 00 Senior Sub-Judge, Gurgaon. which was pending. The Bank saidthat F. D. R. was given to it as security for bank guarantee which the bank hadgiven on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and that the bank guarantee had beendischarged and after discharge of the bank guarantee the bank had everyright to adjust the amount of the F. D. R in exercise of its general lien overthe F. D. R. It was also pleaded that the bank had every right to adjust theamount of F. D. R. against its dues. Further the bank pleaded that the partiesin order to play a fraud got a collusive award prepared which does not affectits right to adjust the amount due on F. D. R. It was also pleaded that therespondent No. 2 much after filing of the suit procured the award and himself got statement recorded in the award that the amount of F. D. R. berecovered from the bank when he fully knew that he had to pay a huge sumof Rs. 8,24,369. 00 with costs and interest to the bank. The case of the bankin the objection petition was that no amount was due from it to respondentno. 2 for which any Garnishee order could be issued. It was pleaded that theaward was procured to get a handle to deprive the bank of the amount of thef. D. R. The objections tiled by the bank were dismissed by the impugnedorder. An application for review filed by the bank, inter-alia, pleading thatthe amount of the F. D. R. bad been adjusted by the bank on 21/10/1991 in the Protested Bill Ledger and that the said fact escaped the attentionof the Manager of the bank as ledger and adjustment is not dealt with by themanager but by the staff working at the Counter, was rejected by the executing Court on 6/05/1992. ( 4 ) IN this appeal the bank was directed to produce relevant record toshow that in exercise of its lien the bank had already adjusted/appropriatedthe amount in question. Inspection of the said record was also given to therespondents. Photostat copy of the said record in support of the plea ofadjustment by the bank in the Protested Bill Ledger has also been placed onrecord of this appeal. Inspection of the said record was also given to therespondents. Photostat copy of the said record in support of the plea ofadjustment by the bank in the Protested Bill Ledger has also been placed onrecord of this appeal. ( 5 ) THE Executing Court, for dismissing the objections of the bankthat it has general lien on the amount of the F. D. R. has placed reliance upona decision of a single judge of this Court in Vijay Kumar v. Jullunder Bodybuilders, Delhi and Others, A. I. R. 1981 Delhi, Page 126, and from thisdecision the following passage has been extracted in the impugned order :- "where the contract between the customer (judgment-debtor)and the bank was to furnish a guarantee for certain amount on theunderstanding that the bank will hold the fixed deposit receiptsfurnished by the Customer as a security for the guarantee the bankgave on behalf of the Customer and the liability under the guaranteewas discharged by the Court, the bank could not hold the depositreceipts in their hands for the general balance due to the customerin the customer s overdraft account when the endorsement of thebank manager on the reverse of the letter given by the customer inconnection with the guarantee on the usual printed from indicatedthat the fixed deposit receipts were given in connection with thebank guarantee only the letter had to be read with the endorsementand so read would constitute a contract contrary to the general lienof the bank. Consequently, the Court, in whose favour the guaranteewas given could attach the fixed deposit receipts in the hands ofthe bank as the amount under the fixed deposit receipts belonged tothe customer. " ( 6 ) IN view of the aforesaid decision the executing Court held that thebank/appellant is not entitled to adjust the amount of the F. D. R. ( 7 ) THE aforesaid decision of this Court on which reliance was placedby the Executing Court had already been reversed by the Supreme Court inre: Syndicate Bank v. Vijay Kumar and Ors. , A. LR, 1992 SC 1066. Thesupreme Court decided that case on 5/03/1992 whereas the impugnedorder is dated 20/04/1992. It has been held by the Supreme Court thathaving regard to the merantile custom as judicially recognised the bank hasa general lien over all forms of deposits and securities made by or on behalfof the customer in the ordinary course of banking business. Thesupreme Court decided that case on 5/03/1992 whereas the impugnedorder is dated 20/04/1992. It has been held by the Supreme Court thathaving regard to the merantile custom as judicially recognised the bank hasa general lien over all forms of deposits and securities made by or on behalfof the customer in the ordinary course of banking business. The Supremecourt not only relied upon the recital in the letters in the said case creatinglien in favour of the bank but also pronounced about the right of the bank ofgeneral lien over all forms of deposits or securities made by or on behalf ofthe customer in the ordinary course of banking business. ( 8 ) APART from the right of the appellant to exercise thegeneral lieu on the amount of the F. D. R. as according to it hugeamounts were due to the bank from respondent No. 2 and much beforepassing of the decree on the basis of the award, a suit for recovery ofover Rs. 8 lakhs had been filed by the bank against respondent No. 2, itseems that the amount of the F. D. R. had been adjusted by the bank on 2 2/10/1991. The documents in that regard, as noticed above, have beenplaced on record of this appeal. Having regard to the facts and circumstancesof the case the fact that the said documents were not placed by the bank onexecution Court record at the time of filing objections under Order 26 Rule46-A, Civil Procedure Code or lack of specific pleading about adjustment in the saidobjections is not of vital consequence. I may also notice that in this appealthe appellant has also placed certain documents in support of its contentionthat respondent No. 1 was, in fact, an employee of respondent No. 2 andhad been writing letters to the bank for and on behalf of respondent No. 2as Manager of respondent No. 2 with a view to support its plea that thewhole affair between the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was collusive with a viewto deprive the bank of its dues and somehow procure the amount of thef. D. R. ( 9 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order, dated 20/04/1992 is set aside. The direction to the appellant-bank to deposit the amountof the F. D. R. cannot be sustained as no amount is due from the Garnisheei. e. the bank to respondent No. 2. D. R. ( 9 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order, dated 20/04/1992 is set aside. The direction to the appellant-bank to deposit the amountof the F. D. R. cannot be sustained as no amount is due from the Garnisheei. e. the bank to respondent No. 2. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed andthe impugned order is set aside leaving the parties to bear their own costs.