P L D 1967 Karachi 155 (PLP)
MANIK‑Applicant Versus Haji LAKHANO‑Opponent
| Citation | P L D 1967 Karachi 155 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MANIK‑Applicant Versus Haji LAKHANO‑Opponent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1967 Karachi 155 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1967 Karachi 155 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1967 Karachi 155 (PLP) (MANIK‑Applicant Versus Haji LAKHANO‑Opponent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Naimuddin for Respondent.
- Mr. Salahuddin says that the surety has now become a practising lawyer and does not wish to continue to be a surety in this case. The surety, who is present himself, says that he accepted to be the surety in this case on the inducement of his friends, but adds that he does not know as to what he was undertaking at that time. These two excuses are not sufficient to relieve the surety of his responsibility because, according to counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Naimuddin, Advocate, a stay order was issued and to safeguard the produce a surety was required. In these circumstances, unless another surety is found, the present surety cannot be relieved, nor can he be relieved of any liability which he may have already incurred in the mean time.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 145‑Surety, discharge of‑Fact that surety has become practising lawyer or that at tune of standing surety he did not know what he was undertaking‑Not sufficient ground for relieving surety of his responsibility‑Unless another substitute found such surety cannot be relieved nor can he be absolved of any liability he may have already incurred in meantime.
Judgment & Decree
Abdus Sattar Shaikh for Applicant. Naimuddin for Respondent. Salahuddin for the Surety. Shaikh Muhammad, Pleader also present. Mr. Salahuddin says that the surety has now become a practising lawyer and does not wish to continue to be a surety in this case. The surety, who is present himself, says that he accepted to be the surety in this case on the inducement of his friends, but adds that he does not know as to what he was undertaking at that time. These two excuses are not sufficient to relieve the surety of his responsibility because, according to counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Naimuddin, Advocate, a stay order was issued and to safeguard the produce a surety was required. In these circumstances, unless another surety is found, the present surety cannot be relieved, nor can he be relieved of any liability which he may have already incurred in the mean time.
2. Counsel for the applicant says that he has not been able to contact his client; therefore he is not in a position to say whether a substitute surety can to found by him or not. He is allowed to contact his client and to inform this Court of the result on the next date. Date in office. K.B.A. Order accordingly.