| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 26 2018 SLD 26 2018 PLJ 8 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 9483 of 2017, decided on 29.6.2017. Date of hearing: 29.6.2017.
ABDUL RAHMAN AURANGZEB, JUSTICE
Ch. Khawar Siddique Sahi, Advocate for Petitioner.
Writ Petition No. 9483 of 2017, decided on 29.6.2017. Date of hearing: 29.6.2017.
ABDUL RAHMAN AURANGZEB, JUSTICE
Ch. Khawar Siddique Sahi, Advocate for Petitioner.
CHIRAGH DIN
VS
A.D.J., ETC.
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 199--Constitutional Petition--Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and dowry articles--Decreed--Execution petition--Objection petition--Dismissed--Appeal against dismissal--Dismissed--Liability of surety--Challenge to--Petitioner stood surety for payment of decretal amount and not for only appearance and production of debtor--It is also manifest from record that petitioner did not stand surety for appearance of debtor rather he stood surety for payment of decretal amount, therefore, he cannot be absolved from his liability on account of mere arrest of debtor--Petition dismissed in limine. ORDER Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of impugned orders dated 09.03.2017 and 10.04.2017 passed by learned Executing Court and order dated 14.06.2017 passed by learned Additional District Judge Chichawatni, District Sahiwal whereby the objection petition filed by the petitioner was concurrently dismissed. 2. The necessary facts are that Respondents No. 3 4 filed a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and recovery of dowry articles against Respondent No. 5 Muhammad Riaz son of Chiragh Din, who is husband and father of said respondents respectively. The suit was decreed by the learned Judge Family Court, Chichawatni vide judgment and decree dated 11.11.2011. Thereafter Respondents No. 3 4 filed an execution petition for the recovery of decretal amount. During the pendency of the execution petition, the judgment debtor-Respondent No. 5 dis- appeared, hence, the learned Executing Court issued bailable warrant of arrest of the judgment debtor. The petitioner gave surety for the judgment debtor but later on filed an objection petition against the proceedings of the learned Executing Court which was dismissed vide order dated 10.04.2017, against which an appeal was filed which also met the same fate vide judgment dated 14.06.2017. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the judgment debtor is available and was also sent to imprisonment by the learned Executing Court, therefore, the liability of surety is relinquished and he cannot be held…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492