K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

The question that has come up for consideration in this case is as to whether the court has got jurisdiction to direct the creditor to postpone the execution of a decree as against some of the sureties, till the creditor exhausts his remedies against another surety.

2. Plaintiff is the appellant. Suit was for realisation of money. Plaintiff bank had advanced a loan of Rs. 6,40,000/- to one Sasihithlu Fisheries on the guarantee of fifth respondent, a society set up for the welfare of the fishermen, for the purchase of a mechanised fishing boat. Fifth respondent stood as guarantor by pledging fixed deposit receipts for Rs. 9.87 lakhs. Sasihithlu Fisheries failed to repay the loan amount. Consequently, fifth respondent offered to find out a person, for purchase of the fishing boat, provided the credit facilities given to Sasihithlu Fisheries are transferred to the said purchaser by the bank. Plaintiff bank accepted the offer and agreed to transfer the loan account in the name of the intending purchaser, as suggested by the fifth respondent.

3. Accordingly fifth respondent proposed the first respondent to purchase the fishing boats and requested the bank to transfer the loan account in the name of the first respondent. Consequently, on 10.2.1981 first respondent approached the plaintiff bank for a loan of Rs. 6,91,000/- for purchase of fishing boats and accessories. Bank had on 10.2.1981 granted the loan of Rs. 6,91,000/- on the guarantee of respondents 2 and 3. All the three respondents executed necessary documents before availing of the loan.

Respondents 2 and 3 have deposited their title deeds which are described in the plaint as A, B and C schedules with intention to create an equitable mortgage in respect of those properties. Respondents 1 to 3 agreed to repay the loan amount in monthly instalments with minimum interest at 11.35% per annum. Fifth respondent also offered fixed deposits as security for the loan amount advanced to the first respondent. They agreed that the entire loan amount would be paid within a period of seven years from the date of avail.

4. First respondent committed default in repaying the instalments. Consequently, bank called upon respondents 1 to 3 to regularise the account. They offered to furnish additional security. Consequently, respondents 4 and 5 stood as additional guarantors for the first respondent. Fourth respondent also deposited title deeds of his property to create an equitable mortgage as security for the loan amount. The fixed deposits pledged by the fifth respondent as security for the loan amount are described as D Schedule to the plaint, All the respondents agreed that they would be jointly and severally liable for the default of the first respondent. Respondents had also executed revival letters on 26.8.1982,30.7.1983, and on 26.9.1985 acknowledging their liability under the original loan arrangement dated 10.2.1981. The first respondent committed default in repaying the loan amount and the bank then instituted the suit for an amount of Rs. 13,15,816.96. Suit was instituted for realisation of the loan amount charged on A, B and C immovable properties as well as D schedule fixed deposits.

5. Respondents 1 and 3 alone contested the suit. According to the first respondent he had paid several amounts to the fifth respondent through the plaintiff-bank. Plaintiff-bank ought to have adjusted the loan amount from the fixed deposit amount as and when the same was matured. It is his case that fixed deposits amount was not adjusted with the intention of getting undue advantage. It is his further case that plaintiffs claim is inflated and the claim itself is barred by limitation. Third respondent in his written statement denied the execution of the documents. Even though it was admitted that first respondent had sent the documents of the title to the plaintiff-bank, according to him, he did not execute the memorandum of agreement dated 24.6.1981 agreeing to create an