1985 PLP 1352 (SCMR)

Date of hearing: 10th June, 1984. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑This petition is directed against an interim order passed by the High Court, whereby, while admitting the writ petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the Judge, Family Court, Sialkot, which was upheld by the Additional District Judge, Sialkot, decreeing the suit of dower preferred by the respondent against the petitioner, the learned Judge did not unconditionally stay the operation of the decree but allowed the execution proceeding to continue though the respondent was not permitted to withdraw the decretal amount unless she furnished security to the satisfaction of the Executing Court. The petitioner is aggrieved by the later part of the order passed by the High Court allowing execution proceeding to continue and further allowing the decretal amount to be withdrawn on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Executing Court. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he had already furnished a surety bond before the Judge, Family Court, Sialkot (a copy whereof is appended as Annexure 'H') and as the impugned judgment of the High Court is a continuation of the proceedings between the same parties, the High Court was not justified in passing an order for deposit of the decretal amount, without first setting aside the surety already tendered in that Court. We have looked at the copy of the document, attached as Annexure 'A' and we find that it is a surety bond filed in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Sialkot and not before the Judge, Family Court. This bond was furnished apparently in pursuance of the order of the Additional District Judge staying execution of the decree of the Judge. Family Court on the condition that the petitioner furnished a surety bond to pay the decretal amount if his appeal failed. Thus, the surety bond, being relied upon, has absolutely no relevance in the proceedings before the High Court. " The other submission of the petitioner, that in case the decretal amount is withdrawn by respondent No. 1, its recovery would become problematical if his writ petition was accepted, has some force. Consequently, the order of the High Court could be amended to the extent that, while not staying the execution proceedings, the respondent could withdraw the decretal amount only after furnishing security in the form of a Bank Guarantee. Mr. Asif Jan, Advocate, who appeared in support of the caveat lodged by respondent No. 1, stated that he has no objection to such an amendment being made in the order of the learned Judge of the High Court. We could, accordingly, convert this petition into an appeal and allow it to the extent that the latter part of the order of the High Court shall be amended, as indicated above, and shall now stand in the following terms:‑ "The execution proceedings are not stayed but the respondent shall not withdraw the decretal amount unless she furnishes security in the form of a Bank Guarantee from a scheduled Bank to the satisfaction of the Executing Court." This appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. M.I. ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.