| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 893 2020 SLD 893 2020 CLD 492 |
Lahore High Court
E.F.A. No. 117859 of 2017, decided on 22nd May, 2019.
CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD, JAHANGIR, JUSTICE
Ch. Muhammad Rafiq Warraich for Appellants. Mr. Malik Iftikhar Ahmad and Muhammad Faheem Mazhar for
Respondent No. 1.
E.F.A. No. 117859 of 2017, decided on 22nd May, 2019.
CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD, JAHANGIR, JUSTICE
Ch. Muhammad Rafiq Warraich for Appellants. Mr. Malik Iftikhar Ahmad and Muhammad Faheem Mazhar for
Respondent No. 1.
ZULFIQAR ALI AND OTHERS
VS
LIAQAT ALI AND OTHERS
Law: Contract, Act, 1872
Section: 128
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 145
(a) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S. 128---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 145---Surety's liability---Scope---Enforcement of liability of surety---Decree-holder had instituted recovery suit on the basis of cheque---Judgment-debtor was granted leave to defend the suit subject to furnishing surety bonds---Sureties had jointly stood surety and ultimately the suit was decreed---Executing court vide impugned order proceeded to initiate proceedings for the satisfaction of decree against the sureties, which was contested on the grounds that their liabilities stood absolved after the death of the -debtor; that unless the principal debtor was proceeded against in the first instance, the recovery proceedings against sureties were not warranted and that they were not party to the original lis, as such decree was not executable against them---Validity---Sureties had bounded themselves and subsequently it was not open for them to wriggle out of their liability---Prior to discharge of their liability, sureties had no right to dictate terms to the creditor and ask him to pursue his remedy against the principal debtor in the first instance---Section 145, C.P.C. clarified that surety, for the purposes of appeal, would be deemed to be a party to the proceedings---Mere fact that the principal had died did not absolve the surety from performing his contract---Executing court was justified to proceed with the measures for satisfaction of the decree against the sureties---Appeal of sureties having no merit and force, was dismissed. Mirza Anwar Ahmad v. Habib Bank Ltd., Faisalabad and others 1989 CLC 2441; Muhammad Bashir through Legal Heir v. Zarina Bibi and others PLD 2014 Lah. 429; Khan Muhammad Ishaq Khan v. The Azad Sharma Transport Co. Ltd. and others PLD 1953 Lah. 22 and Mrs. Muhammad Shafi through Agent v. Sultan Ahmed 2000 CLC 85 ref. Messrs State Engineering Corporation Ltd. v. National Development Finance Corporation and others 2006 CLD 687; Rafique Hazquel Masih v. Bank Alfalah Ltd. and others 2005 SCMR 72 and Habib Bank Limited v. Malik Atta Muhammad and 4 others 2000 CLC 451 rel. Maula Dad v. Wadhawa Singh and others AIR 1924 Lah. 428 fol. (b) Contract Act (IX…
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