King, J.

1. The question in this appeal is whether in the circumstances of this case the decree-holder in O.S. No. 42 of 1929, on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court of Tuticorin can proceed against the first respondent to recover from him the sum of Rs. 1,600 referred to in the surety bond executed by him in 1932. The facts are that O.S. No. 42 of 1929 was a suit upon a mortgage and in that suit at the instance of the mortgagee a receiver had been appointed. There was an appeal by the third defendant against this order appointing the receiver which was numbered as C.M.A. No. 375 of 1931 in the High Court. When the appeal was filed, an application was also filed for stay of further proceedings by the receiver and stay was granted on condition that the third defendant should give security for one years income from the mortgaged property fixed at a sum of Rs. 1,600. In accordance with that order the third defendant executed a surety bond the terms of which are now in dispute. The actual sentence in which his liability is expressed runs as follows:

If the C.M.A. No. 375 of 1931 preferred by me to the High Court against the order appointing receiver, is decided in favour of