| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2005 SLG 1215 2005 SLD 1215 2005 CLC 641 |
Lahore High Court
E.F.A. No.275 of 2004, decision dated: 18-11-2004.
SYED, JAMSHED ALI, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
E.F.A. No.275 of 2004, decision dated: 18-11-2004.
SYED, JAMSHED ALI, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
SHAHAMAD KHAN
VS
Sh. MUHAMMAD AKBAR and others
Law:
Section:
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)------O. XXXVII, Rr. 2 & 3, O.XXI, Rr.12 & 13---Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 134 & 139---Suit for recovery of amount on basis of Promissory Note---Execution of decree---Attachment of property of surety---Discharge of surety---Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of amount and defendant was allowed to appear and defend suit subject to his furnishing security---"A" stood surety for the defendant and bound himself, his property and a residential house to satisfy decree if passed against the defendant and bond in that respect was submitted before Trial Court---Plaintiffs compromised the dispute and defendant had stated that he had paid considerable amount to the plaintiff and had no objection if the suit to the extent of remaining amount was decreed---Such having been accepted by plaintiff, suit was decreed accordingly---Decree-holder in execution proceedings moved an application for attachment of property of the surety, who challenged initiation of execution proceedings contending that though he stood surety for the -debtor, but he had never undertaken that even if a consent decree was passed, he would be liable---Validity---Surety, according to the bond had categorically undertaken that in case suit was decreed, he would be liable to pay decretal amount and he also bound his property to satisfy decree passed by Trial Court---No reservation was made in the surety bond that he would be bound only by a decree passed after contest of the suit---No rule existed showing that in case of a consent decree surety was ipso facto discharged. Seth Pratapsingh Moholalbhai and another v. Keshavlal Harilal Setalwad and another AIR 1935 PC 21; Mahanth Singh v. U. Ba Yi AIR 1939 PC 110; Mian Aftab A. Sheikh and others v. Messrs Trust Leasing Corporation Limited and others 2003 CLD 702; Mohan Lal v. Suraj Mani and another AIR 1973 J&K 92; Kabiruddin v. Debish Singh and others AIR 1935 Nag. 16; Annadana Jadaya Goundar v. Konammal and another AIR 1933 Mad. 309; Dalip Singh v. Kishan Chand and others AIR 1937 Lah. 34 and Messrs Meena Trading Co., Karachi v. Abdul Ghani and another PLD 1972 Kar. 19 ref. Syed Kaleem Ahmad Khurshid for…
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