( 1 ) THIS order disposes of IA 7907/94 and IA 7548/94. IA 7907/94 This calls for aninterpretation of the term "security". Whether a person or institution can himself provide a security in response to a call of the Court or should a security to be so must necessarily emanate from a surety i. e. a third person.

( 2 ) IT would be useful to notice briefly the facts in the background. The plaintiff bank filed a suit under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code against the three defendants namely, Mr M. S. Handa, Mr Ashwani Kapoor and Indian Overseas Bank. The plaintiff is a banking company incorporated in England but is having its branch offices at several places in India including one at 17, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. Vide order dated 143. 93, this Court had allowed unconditional leave to defend to all the three defendants. There was an appeal preferred to the Division Bench being FAO 56/93. It was dismissed by the Division Bench on 17. 8. 93. The plaintiff had also filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. Vide order dated 26. 11. 93, ( Civil Appeal No. 7172-74 and 7175 of 1993), their Lordships of the Supreme Court granted special leave and after hearing the parties, made the following order :

"we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case the High Court was not justified in granting unconditional leave to defend to defendant I to 3. We modify the High Court order to the extent that leave to defend is granted to defendant 2 and 3 on their depositing Rs. I crore each before the trial court within two months from today. As and when the money is deposited the appellate bank may withdraw the same on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the trial court. The appeals are allowed to the above extent. "

( 3 ) ON 27. 1. 1994, Indian Overseas bank defendant No. 3, tendered an amount of Rs. I crore by way of a cheque and the Court directed the Registrar to accept the same. On 21. 4. 94, on an application filed by the plaintiff to withdraw the sum of Rs. I crore deposited by defendant NO. 3, the court directed that the plaintiff may withdraw Rs. I crore after furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the Registrar of this Court.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff bank has now furnished the security and seeks order of the court enabling withdrawal of the sum of Rs. I crore deposited by defendant No. 3 along with interest accrued thereon. The security has been filed in the shape of a bank guarantee No. 316/940322 dated 18. 7. 94 executed by the plaintiff bank through its manager and accountant. The relevant part thereof reads as under :

"now therefore this guarantee witnesseth that we Standard Chartered Bank, hereby hold firmly bound unto the Registrar of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in suit No. 935 of 1990 for payment to it on demand without demur the amounts released to us as per the order of this Hon ble High Court upon we being unsuccessful to suit no. 935 of 1990. We, standard Chartered Bank further guarantee that the guarantee herein contained shall not be effected by any change in the constitution of our bank and it is hereby agreed by us that this guarantee shall remain in full force till the disposal of the suit. "

( 5 ) ON defendant No. 3 having been noticed it has objected to the acceptance of this bank guarantee as security. The main contention of the learned counsel for defendant No. 3 has been that security always implies furnishing of surety by a third person and a party cannot furnish security of its own. Reliance is placed on a Division Bench decision of Allahabad High Court in Sakhavar Hussaia vs. Rajjab and Anr AIR 1951 All 424.

( 6 ) THE term security is not to be found defined in CPC. Words and Phrases (Permanent Edition) Vol 38, at pages 469-71) defines security as under :-

"security" is something which makes the enjoyment or enforcement of a right more secure or certain; that which secures and makes safe. Security is something which makes the enjoyment or enforce