2007 PLP 2764 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.

Instant appeal assailed judgment/order dated 21-12-2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge Toba Tek Singh whereby application filed by the appellant for setting aside ex parte decree dated 14-11-2005 was dismissed.

2. Precisely, relevant facts are that Ch. Ijaz Ahmad respondent No.3 filed a suit for recovery of Rs.11,00,000 on the basis of a promissory note dated 12-1-2005 executed in his favour by Muhammad Arshad-respondent No.2 who failed to pay the suit amount, necessitating filing of suit under Order XXXVII, rule 1, C.P.C. before the learned Additional District Judge Toba Tek Singh.

3. Respondent No.2 being defendant in the suit, in response to his service, filed an application for leave to appear/defend the suit. Application of respondent No.2 was accepted subject to his furnishing of surety bond equal to the suit amount. Respondent No.2 furnished surety of the appellant and thereafter filed his written statement, raising certain preliminary objections like, lack of cause of action, estoppel on the part of respondent No.3 and denial of liability to pay the pro note amount. Controversial pleadings of the parties necessitated framing of issues and recording of evidence. Respondents No.2 was required by the learned Additional District Judge to appear before his Court in person on 24-9-2005, on which date he did not appear and his counsel withdrew his "Wakalatnama" with the plea that he did not want to peruse the case. On account of non-appearance of respondent No.2 who in spite of his service; did not appear, resulted in ex, parte proceedings against him on 12-10-2005. The learned Additional District Judge recorded ex parte evidence of respondent No.3 and ultimately decreed his suit ex parte on 14-11-2005.

4. Respondent No.2 judgment-debtor filed an application under Order IX, rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 14-11-2005 which was dismissed after due contest on 21-12-2005. Respondent No.3 went in execution of the ex parte decree and since the appellant had given surety bond at the time of grant of leave to appear/defend the suit, for respondent No.2 undertaking to pay the decretal amount, if suit of respondent No.3 is ultimately decreed, consequently filed an objection petition before the Executing Court. Appellant pleaded that he only signed the surety bond for the purposes of identification of the judgment-debtor and he never intended to become surety on his behalf. He further narrated that judgment-debtor and the decree-holder have connived to usurp his valuable property and thus his objection petition may be accepted and he may be relieved of the liability of payment of the decretal amount. Appellant's objection petition was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 21-12-2005. He, thereafter, filed instant appeal and respondent No.3 in response to notice by this Court has appeared and was represented through his counsel.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Plea of the appellant that he signed the surety bond, identifying the judgment-debtor is belied from the record, as he signed the surety bond, as its executant. He besides giving surety bond in place of the judgment-debtor (respondent No.2) got his own statement recorded before the trial Court, undertaking responsibility of payment of decretal amount in case suit of respondent No.3 is ultimately decreed. The judicial; proceedings could not be belied/dispelled through any solid proof and under law, a presumption of regularity/correctness is attached thereto. Land of the appellant was' attached in execution of a money decree' and no legal/factual defect could be pointed out in the proceedings so taken. The' appellant cannot absolve himself of the liability undertaken by him, on the basis of mere bald and unfounded assertions. Scan of record and impugned order revealed that controversy was correctly put to. rest, without committing any error of law/facts.

6. For the reasons noted above, no case for interference in appellate jurisdiction of this Court was made out and consequently instant appeal being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs. M.H./G-56/L Appeal dismissed.