L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) DEBTOR in EP No. 4 of 2003 in OS No. 12 of 2000 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, filed this CRP. , assailing the order dated 17-9-2004, passed by the Executing Court. ( 2 ) THE 2nd respondent herein was advanced some amount by the State Bank of Hyderabad, the 1st respondent. The petitioner offered himself as a surety, for repayment of the amount Since the 2nd respondent committed default in repayment of the loan, the 1st respondent filed OS no. 12 of 2000. The suit was decreed on 29-12-2000 for a sum of Rs. 55,394/ -. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent were held jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount The decree became final. ( 3 ) THE 1st respondent filed EP No. 30 of 2001 for execution of the decree. The 2nd respondent offered to pay the decretal amount, in installments at the rate of rs. 1,000/- per month. The 1st respondent agreed for the same, and the EP was closed. Alleging that the 2nd respondent committed, default in payment of the installments, the 1st respondent filed EP No. 4 of 2003 and sought to proceed against the petitioner herein. ( 4 ) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the 1st respondent had already taken out execution of the 2nd respondent, the principal-debtor, and once ep No. 30 of 2001 was closed, by directing a particular arrangement, it was not open to the 1st respondent to proceed against him. The 2nd respondent also expressed his willingness to pay the balance. The Execution court did not agree with the contention of the petitioner, and through the order under revision ordered that the salary of the petitioner be attached, following the procedure under Section 60 of CPC. ( 5 ) SMT. G. Jaya Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent, had already taken out execution against the 2nd respondent, and the petitioner by filling EP No. 30 of 2001 and the 2nd respondent has undertaken to pay the entire amount, in installments. ( 5 ) SMT. G. Jaya Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent, had already taken out execution against the 2nd respondent, and the petitioner by filling EP No. 30 of 2001 and the 2nd respondent has undertaken to pay the entire amount, in installments. She contends that once the 1st respondent agreed to receive the amount, in installments, and the EP was closed with the consent of the parties, it is not open to them to take any other steps, except to enforce the directions issued in EP No. 30 of 2001. ( 6 ) SRI Simhadri, learned Standing counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that, it is open to the holder in a money suit to enforce the decree against the principal-debtor, or the surety, and perforce, partly against each of them. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme court in State Bank of India v. M/s indexport Registered, (1992) 3 SCC 159 , learned Counsel contends that the liberty of the 1st respondent to proceed against the petitioner herein cannot be scuttled. He also submits that the necessity to proceed against the petitioner arose, on account of the default committed by the 2nd respondent, and that no interference is warranted with the order under revision. ( 7 ) THE 1st respondent obtained a decree for a sum of Rs. 55,394/- against the 2nd respondent and the petitioner herein. It is not in dispute that the petitioner offered himself as a surety, for repayment of the amount borrowed by the 2nd respondent. There exists hardly any doubt, as to the right and entitlement of a decree-holder, in a money suit, to proceed against the principal-debtor, or the surety. In State Bank of India v, M/s. Indexport Registered (supra), the Supreme Court held as under:"the decree does not put any fetter on the right of the decree-holder to execute it against any party, whether as a money decree or as a mortgage decree. The execution of the money decree is not made dependent on first applying for execution of the mortgage decree. The choice is left entirely with the decree-holder". It was further held that the decree-holder is not under obligation to proceed against the property alone, even where the decree is a composite one, viz. , for recovery of amount and sale of mortgaged property. The choice is left entirely with the decree-holder". It was further held that the decree-holder is not under obligation to proceed against the property alone, even where the decree is a composite one, viz. , for recovery of amount and sale of mortgaged property. ( 8 ) IN the instant case, the 1st respondent, decree-holder filed EP No. 30 of 2001, duly impleading the principal- debtor and the surety, viz. , the 2nd respondent and the petitioner, respectively. By the time the EP was filed, the 2nd respondent paid a sum of Rs. 7,500/ -. He offered to pay the balance in monthly installments, of Rs. 1,000/- each. ( 9 ) RULE 11 Order 20 CPC mandates that it is competent for the Court, which passes the decree, to grant installments for payment of the decretal amount, either with or without interest Such facility is made available under sub-rule (2) thereof, even after the decree is passed. The uncertainty, as to whether it is competent for the Executing Court, to grant installments, during the course of execution of the decree, was put at rest, by a catena of decisions. It was held that it is not at all competent for an Executing Court to grant installments, during the course execution, and that such a power can be exercised only by the court, which passed the decree. ( 10 ) IN EP No. 30 of 2001, the Executing court passed an order on 22-11-2001, as under"part satisfaction memo for Rs. 1,000/- is filed. Part satisfaction recorded. Considering the explanation of judgment- debtor, he is directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- a month periodically on or before 5di of every month, till the realization of the suit amount With the above direction, the EP is closed In case of the JDR failing to pay regularly, he is liable to pay costs". ( 11 ) THE 1st respondent did not object for the arrangement indicated in the said order. It accepted and received 19 installments thereafter. The legality or otherwise of the order dated 22-11-2001, is not the subject- matter of the CRP, nor was it canvassed by the 1st respondent in any other proceedings. ( 11 ) THE 1st respondent did not object for the arrangement indicated in the said order. It accepted and received 19 installments thereafter. The legality or otherwise of the order dated 22-11-2001, is not the subject- matter of the CRP, nor was it canvassed by the 1st respondent in any other proceedings. Once the EP No. 30 of 2001, filed by the 1st respondent, against the 2nd respondent and the petitioner, was closed with an order, in terms, indicated above, the nature of mutual rights and obligation of the parties, vis-a-vis those contained in the decree in the suit, stand altered. A new set of rights and obligations have come into existence. The petitioner was not a party to the said arrangement. Impliedly, the 1st respondent had relieved the petitioner of his obligation, under the decree, by agreeing, or reconciling to the course of action indicated in the order dated 22-11-2001 in EP No. 30 of 2001. Further, it is also doubtful as to whether the 1st respondent can take any steps, other than those indicated in the said order, even against the 2nd respondent. At any rate, it was not open to the 1st respondent to file a fresh ep and proceed against the petitioner alone, totally giving up the course of action indicated in the order passed in EP No. 30 of 2001. ( 12 ) THE Executing Court had undertaken extensive discussion, in relation to the rights of the respondents 1 and 2, and the petitioner, inter se. It did not choose to take into account the effect of the order passed in EP No. 30 of 2001. ( 13 ) EVEN assuming that the 1st respondent did not suffer an order in EP no. 30 of 2001, it needs to be examined as to whether it is competent for a decree- holder, to proceed partly against the principal- debtor and partly against the surety. The judgment of the Supreme Court, referred to above, no doubt, accorded unbridled discretion to a decree-holder, to proceed against the principal-debtor, or the surety. However, once the judgment-debtor has chosen to proceed against any of them, and realized the decretal amount to certain extent, it is difficult to concede to him, the freedom to proceed against the other, halfway through. However, once the judgment-debtor has chosen to proceed against any of them, and realized the decretal amount to certain extent, it is difficult to concede to him, the freedom to proceed against the other, halfway through. It is only after he exhausts his remedies, vis-a-vis a party, against whom he initiated proceedings, and the decree still remains unsatisfied, that he can proceed against the other party. Otherwise, the freedom accorded to the decree-holder is prone to be misused and the judgment-debtors are likely to be harassed and subjected to hardship. It is always open to a decree- holder to proceed against the remaining judgment-debtors, if the steps taken by him and carried to their end, against one of the judgment-debtors have failed to result in full satisfaction of the decree. He cannot have the pleasure or luxury of proceeding partly against on judgment-debtor and partly against other, without carrying the execution proceedings, till the legal or logical end. Otherwise, the object of the execution proceedings ceases to be the one to realize the decretal amount and tends to become the one to harass the judgment-debtors. ( 14 ) IN the instant case, it has emerged that the 1st respondent has proceeded against the 2nd respondent and realized substantial amount. It has come in the evidence, that the 2nd respondent has agreed to pay the balance amount. The 1st respondent did not face any impediment in proceeding against the 2nd respondent. Apart from the willingness on the part of the 2nd respondent, to pay the amount, there existed his properties, which are mortgaged in favour of the 1st respondent. Under these circumstances, it was not open to the 1st respondent to proceed against the petitioner herein, without exhausting its rights and steps against the 2nd respondent. ( 15 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the CRP is allowed, and the order under levision is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.