(1.) The petitioner questions the order of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge at Tenali dated 28-3-1992 allowing E.P.No. 141 of 1990 in O.S.No.78 of 1986 filed under Order 21 Rule 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Decree-holder i.e., the 1 st respondent herein, against the petitioner herein who is the 3rd judgment-debtor, for the recovery of the decree amount in O.S.No.78 of 1986 by attachment of Rs.15,000/- lying in fixed deposit in the name of the petitioner herein in the 1st respondent-bank together with interest which accrued thereon.
(2.) It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent-bank obtained a joint and several decree in that suit dated 20-3-1990 against the petitioner and respondents 2 to 5 which they are to satisfy personally. As the judgment - debtors did not pay any amount, the bank filed the E.P. as stated above and the said E.P. was allowed rejecting the objections raised on behalf of the petitioner herein.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner questions the said order of the learned Subordinate Judge relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Manku Narayan (1) AIR 1987 SC 1078, and contends that the petitioner herein was only a guarantor and that the decree-holder ought not to proceed against the guarantor without first seeking to execute the decree against the other judgment-debtors.