1991 PLP 1217 (CLC)

IN THE COURT OF MR. ABDUL QADIR SHAD, CIVIL JUDGE, LAHORE. In re: Abdul Wahecd Qurcshi v Ijaz Chughtai and others. SURETY BOND WHEREAS the above‑titled ejectment petition is accepted in favour of Abdul Wahced Qureshi by this Hon'ble Court against Sohail lqbal, Riaz lqbal and Javed lqbal, in compliance with the orders of Mr. Justice Sh. Muhammad Asad Ullah, Lahore High Court, Lahore, vide order dated 6‑1‑1988 is Writ Petition No.88/1988 titled as Sohail lqbal v. Abdul Waheed Qureshi, and the order is as under:‑ "the operation of order dated 23‑12‑1987 is stayed till further orders subject to the furnishing of security by the petitioners for the payment of rent if any, if found due ultimately to the satisfaction of the learned District Court." 1, Pervaiz Iqbal Chughtai son of Jan Muhammad r/o House No.1107/F, Kucha Kothi Daran Old Kutwali, Inside Delhi Gate, Lahore stand surety in this case and my all legal heirs and successors would also stand surety in case of my death. I hereby indemnify that if the abovesaid amount if any is proved to be withdrawn fraudulently or in any other than in due course of law by the petitioners, Sohail lqbal, Naveed Iqbal and Javed Iqbal sons of Jan Muhammad, all residents of 141‑C, Model Town, Lahore, I would indemnify all the loss caused or likely to be caused in any way by Sohail Iqbal, Naveed Iqbal and Javed lqbal, I would be responsible as surety for all of them. In witness whereof, I Pervais Iqbal Chughtai, son of Jan Muhammad signed this surety bond in the presence of the witnesses. sd/‑"

2. Eventually the writ petition was dismissed in limine vide order dated 1‑2‑1988 passed by this Court. Consequently, the petitioner was called upon to pay the outstanding arrears, he failed to do so. The Executing Court was, therefore, constrained to issue non‑bailable warrants of arrest againt him. He riled a revision petition disputing the liability. The learned Additional District Judge, after hearing the parties, held that the judgment‑debtor and the surety were equally liable for payment of the debt and consequently, dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 25‑1‑1989.

3. Sh. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the ejectment petition of respondent No.1 was allowed against Sohail lqbal etc. by the learned Rent Controller on 17‑11‑1986, which was affirmed in appeal on 23‑12‑1987, vires whereof was questioned in Writ Petition No.88 of 1988 wherein during the course of preliminary hearing on 6‑1‑1988, Sh. Muhammad Asadullah, J. (as he then was) suspended the operation of the impugned order subject to payment of rent, if any found due, in which behalf the petitioner stood surety and furnished surety bond ‑‑on 16‑1‑1988; eventually, the writ petition was dismissed in limine and in consequence thereto the suit premises were also vacated and, therefore, from disposal of the writ petition, the interim order dated. (sic) also merged into the final order dated 1‑2‑1988 and consequently lost its legal efficacy.

4. The contention has no force. A bare persual of the interim order dated 6‑1‑1988 read with the surety bond would indubitably show that in terms thereof the petitioner was bound to make the payment of rent, if any found due by the Rent Controller. The petitioner, therefore, cannot wriggle out of his commitment merely because the writ petition was dismissed in limine. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./P‑141/L Petition dismissed.