Judgment 1. Heard the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 petitioner and respondent no. 2 on Interlocutory Application No. 5472 of 2001. 2. The matter was listed yesterday but due to absence of counsel for the appellants it was directed to be listed today. 3. It appears that the copy of the instant application was received by the learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Kedar Nath Singh and in token of that he granted receipt which is on record. Inspite of this, even today he has not appeared and no prayer has been made on his behalf to adjourn this case for any other day. In the facts and circumstances, I have no option but to dispose of this petition after hearing the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2. 4. On 18. 9.2001 the said matter was heard in which the prayer for stay of the execution proceeding was rejected by this Court. Respondents as plaintiff obtained a money decree and as such the same decree was not stayed, however, it was observed that "the contesting respondent, if so advised, may withdraw the decretal amount which has been deposited by the appellant in that execution court after furnishing sufficient seurity (sic) to the satisfaction of the executing court." Thereafter, it appears that the respondent-petitioner filed a petition on 22.9.2001 before the executing court praying therein to execute the Bank draft which was given by the appellants, judgment debtor as per the order of the High Court. By order dated 8.10.2001 after hearing the parties the executing court was of the view that a dispute was raised before him with respect of the word used by. this Court in third line of the bottom in the order dated 18.9.2001. The decree holder claimed that it is seurity whereas the judgment debtor claimed that it is security. The court below considered this aspect of the matter and opined that there is hardly any difference in the meaning of security or surity. However, he refused to accept the photo copy of the documents, namely, title deed, valuation report and building plan as proper documents to be accepted as security because there is no proof of validity and genuinity of the photo-stat copies. He also refused to accept the surety as security because it does not speak about the financial status of the Company. He also refused to accept the surety as security because it does not speak about the financial status of the Company. Under this circumstance, the learned court below has directed the respondent no. 1petitioner to furnish Bank guarantee of the decretal amount of any nationalised Bank. On furnishing such Bank guarantee as security the court observed that the decretal amount shall be released to the decree holder pursuant to the order of the High Court. 5. In my view, the court below has failed to appreciate the nature of the order dated 18.9.2001 where this Court has specifically stated about the seurity. This Court times without number has observed that in such circumstances the court below should not insist for Bank guarantee as seurity. When the decree holder petitioner is redy to produce the original documents of title deed, building plan etc. the court should ordinarily accept the same and should not insist on the decree holder to furnish Bank guarantee. Under this circumstance, I set aside the order dated 8.10.2001 and direct the respondent no. 1, the decreeholder petitioner to deposit the original title deed of the building as well as the original valuation report as well as the building plan before the executing court and the court is directed to verify the genuineness of the valuation report and other documents and on having satisfied should direct the release of the decreetai amount in favour of the petitioner, decree holder. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents apprehends that the date of validity of the Bank draft might have expired and in such case the appellants should be directed to revalidate the Bank draft. The executing court is directed to look into the matter after opening the sealed envelop and if it finds that the date has expired,it will ask the Bank to revalidate the Bank draft so that the petitioner may obtain the decreetai amount without any hinderance. With this observations and directions, this petition is disposed of.