( 1 ) THE question which arises in this appeal is whether in the events which happened the surety has been discharged.

( 2 ) THE appellant before us instituted a suit against one Lal Mohan Chatterjee for the recovery of Rs. 3100/-, Immediately after the Institution of the said suit he caused an attachment to be made on the undivided half share in the dwelling house of the said defendant under Order 38, Rule 5, Civil P. C. The said attachment was removed upon the respondent in this appeal having stood surety for Rs. 3535-13 for the payment of claim and costs of the appellant. The bond of surety was executed on 2-1-1951. The operative part of the said bond provides that the said surety Would remain liable for the payment of Rs 3535-13 and if the said sum is not realised from the defendant, then the Court would realise the same from his movable and immovable property or from his person. It should be noted that the said bond was given in favour of the Court. Thereafter, on 24-7-1951 a decree was passed by consent of the parties in the said suit. In the first clause of the consent decree it is mentioned that there will be a decree for the entire claim in the suit a