Varadachariar, J.

1. This second appeal arises out of an action instituted against a principal debtor and his surety. The debt was due by the first defendant under a mortgage bond executed by him; and the second defendant had made himself liable for the sum as surety under Ex. K. The defences raised in the case were over-ruled by the first Court which gave a decree to the plaintiff against both the defendants. The second defendant appealed to the lower Court on the ground that he should be held to have been exonerated from all liability by reason of the plaintiff having given up his rights under the mortgage bond executed by the first defendant. The lower appellate Court accepted this contention and dismissed the suit. The decree of the lower appellate Court is very loosely worded and even suggests that it might be construed as a total dismissal of the suit. But it is obvious that the District Judge could not have meant to dismiss the suit even as against the first defendant; if necessary I should be prepared to set right that mistake. Against the lower appellate Court the plaintiff has preferred this appeal, contending that the circumstances of the case are not sufficient t