1987 PLP 1910 (CLC)
SALAH‑U D‑DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus MURATAB ALI and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1910 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Amjad Khan, J |
| Parties | SALAH‑U D‑DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus MURATAB ALI and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1910 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1910 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Amjad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1910 (CLC) (SALAH‑U D‑DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus MURATAB ALI and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mirza Hafeezur Rehman for Petitioner.
- Kh. Khurshidul Faheem for Respondent No. 1.
- Nemo for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing: 17th June, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 115 & 145‑‑Enforcement of liability of surety‑‑Undertaking given in pursuance of order of High Court during constitutional proceedings which ultimately resulted in their dismissal‑‑Execution proceedings against surety for enforcement of surety bond whether competent‑ Contention of petitioner that surety bond was not enforceable without a decree for any specified amount, and that surety bond effected, in consequence of constitutional proceeding which resulted in dismissal of the writ petition was not enforceable, repelled‑‑Held, S. 145, C . P. C . clearly provided for enforcement of surety bond against surety‑‑Petitioner could not evade his liability incurred on the basis of interim order passed in constitutional petition and apart from principle of estoppel standing in the way of petitioner, to provide any relief in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction of revision to have his commitment made in High Court rendered nugatory, there was precedent that such undertaking was executed by means of execution petition against surety and principal‑‑Order passed by Trial Court being unexceptionable, revision petition against such order was dismissed. Hidayat Ali v. Sakina Begum and others P L D 1955 Lah. 388 and Bashir Ahmad v. Mst. Jahan Ara Begum 1979 C L C 439 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Hidayat Ali v. Sakina Begum and others P L D 1955 Lah. 388 and Bashir Ahmad v. Mst. Jahan Ara Begum 1979 C L C 439 rel. Mirza Hafeezur Rehman for Petitioner. Kh. Khurshidul Faheem for Respondent No.
1. Nemo for Respondent No.
2. Date of hearing: 17th June, 1987. The petitioner Salah‑ud‑Din provided Shabbir Ahmad respondent No. 2 as surety for payment of Rs.60,000 as the amount of rent realized by him for an erstwhile evacuee property and a bond was accordingly furnished in pursuance of the order passed by the High Court on 7‑7‑1976 in Writ Petition No. 711/R of 1975. After the dismissal of the writ petition on 15‑11‑1981, execution proceedings were launched on 13‑12‑1981 by Maratab Ali respondent for recovery of the amount from the petitioner alongwith his surety. They raised objection therein to the effect that the execution could not lie without the Civil Court having passed a decree with regard to the amount recoverable. Learned Executing Judge repelled the objection by his order, dated 8‑1‑1985 with the observation that the undertaking given in pursuance of the order of the High Court was entitled to be put to affect.
3. It is contended that the surety‑bond is not enforceable without a decree for any specified amount passed in favour of Maratab Ali who is not entitled to upright enforce the surety‑bond in consequence merely of the dismissal of the writ petition wherein undertaking had been given. This contention has no merit and whereas section 145 of the C . P. C . clearly provides for enforcement of surety bond against the surety, even the petitioner cannot evade his liability incurred on the basis of the interim order passed in the writ petition and apart from the principle of estoppel standing in the way of the petitioner being provided any relief in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction of revision to have his commitment made in this Court rendered nugatory, there is the precedent Hidayat Ali v . Sakina Begum and others PLD 1955 Lah. 388 wherein late justice Kaikaus (as he then was) has, considered the question from different angles and come to the conclusion' that such an undertaking is enforceable by means of an execution petition against both the principal and surety. To the same effect also is Bashir Ahmad v. Mst. Jahan Ara Begum 1979 C L C
439. In this view, the order, dated 8‑1‑1985, passed by the learned Civil Judge is unexceptionable.
4. This Civil Revision has no force and the same is, therefore, dismissed with costs. H . B . T . /S‑83/L Revision dismissed.