JUDGMENT 1. - We have heard Mr. N.K. Rastogi, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Manish Pitaliya for the first respondent-caveator. Service on respondent No. 2 judgment-debtor Ram Pal is- dispensed with, as he is not a contesting party. On the request of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is taken up for final hearing. 2. A suit filed by first respondent-Banshilal was decreed against second respondent-Ram Pal for a sum of Rs. 52,551/-. During the execution, appellants Ladi Devi & Raju filed objection. The learned Executing Judge stayed the auction proceedings on the condition that the appellants submit a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 63,200/-. 3. The appellants aggrieved by the order of the learned Executing Court so far as it relates to imposing the condition of furnishing bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 63,200/-, approached this Court by way of an appeal. The learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal having framed the opinion that the condition cannot be said to be erroneous. 4. It is contended by Mr. N.K. Rastogi that the condition of imposing bank guarantee for the sum of Rs. 63,200/- is -harsh inasmuch as looking to the financial condition of the appellants, it is not possible for them to deposit the said amount in the Bank for obtaining the bank guarantee. 5. On the other hand, it is contended by Mr. Manish Pitaliya that this special appeal is not maintainable against the interim order. 6. We have considered the rival contentions. 7. The learned Single Judge having found that there is serious triable issue in respect of which objection was raised by the appellants in the execution proceedings, held that condition imposed is not erroneous. The condition imposed is harsh inasmuch as it is not possible for the appellants to deposit Rs. 63,200/-. They are in possession of the property in dispute. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the ends of justice will be met if the condition of furnishing bank guarantee is substituted by solvent security for the sum of Rs. 63,200/- to the satisfaction of the Executing Court. 8. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.9.2001 is set aside. The order of the Additional District Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh dated 29.5.2001 is modified to the extent that the appellants will furnish solvent security for the sum of Rs. 63,200/- to the satisfaction of the Executing Court. 8. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.9.2001 is set aside. The order of the Additional District Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh dated 29.5.2001 is modified to the extent that the appellants will furnish solvent security for the sum of Rs. 63,200/- instead of bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Executing Court within a period of one month. No order as to costs. *******