-Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance was decreed--Judgment debtor was arrested--Submission of surety bond--Discharge of surety during execution proceedings-

 PLJ 2023 Lahore (Note) 32

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--

----Art. 199--Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance was decreed--Judgment debtor was arrested--Submission of surety bond--Discharge of surety during execution proceedings--Civil revision was accepted--Challenge to--Unexceptional order--Counsel for Petitioner was confronted to point out any illegality or infirmity in impugned Order but he failed to satisfy this Court--Surety is bound by his surety to extent of Rs. 200,000/- undertaken by him--Impugned Order is unexceptional--Findings recorded by Revisional Court are in consonance with law and same require no interference by High Court--Petition dismissed. [Para 7] A

Mr. Shahid Mahmood Minhas, Advocate for Petitioner.

Ch. Saeed Ahmad Cheema, Advocate for Respondents No. 3
to 5.

Nemo for Respondent No. 6.

Date of hearing: 10.11.2022.

 PLJ 2023 Lahore (Note) 32
Present: Abid Hussain Chattha, J.
MUHAMMAD IRFAN--Petitioner
versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and 5 others--Respondents
W.P. No. 61371 of 2020, heard on 10.11.2022.

Judgment

Through this constitutional Petition, the Petitioner has impugned the Order dated 04.11.2020 passed by Additional District Judge, Wazirabad, District Gujranwala.

2. Precisely, Respondents No. 3 to 5, collectively referred to as (the “Respondents”) instituted a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance against Respondent No. 6 which was decreed in their favour. Thereafter, they filed an Execution Petition in which Respondent
No. 6/Judgment-debtor was arrested and the Petitioner submitted surety bond on his behalf. During the Execution proceedings, the Petitioner alongwith Respondent No. 6/Judgment Debtor appeared before the Executing Court and requested to discharge his surety and ultimately his surety was discharged vide Order dated 03.09.2020.

3. The Respondents preferred a Civil Revision against the Order passed by the Executing Court which was accepted by the Revisional Court.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the impugned Order is against the law and facts of the case and same is not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside. The Revisional Court has not applied its judicious mind while reversing the Order passed by the Executing Court. Conversely, learned counsel for the Respondents vehemently defended and supported the impugned Order and submitted that same has been passed in consonance with law and does not require any interference by this Court.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. The operative part of the impugned Order contained in paragraph Nos. 7 & 8 are reproduced as under:

“7. Available record shows that respondent/surety Muhammad Irfan recorded his statement before learned Court on 04.11.2019 that he stands surety of judgment debtor Jehanzeb son of Aurangzeb to extent of Rs.2,00,000. Said statement is reproduced in verbatim for convenient sake:

 

 

 

 

 

8. Principal argument of learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 is that surety was liable to produce judgment debtor/Respondent No. 1 before Court. That he did so even without coercive measures adopted by learned Executing Court. That when judgment debtor has been produced by him before Court, he is no more liable to pay decretal amount involved in execution petition under revision. Above said statement of surety/Respondent No. 2, shows that although he undertakes to pay Rs.2,00,000/- but 6th line of his statement shows that if judgment debtor-does not pay decretal amount by appearing in Court in person he will be liable to pay decretal amount. That learned Executing Court can attach his property. Contention of learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 is not tenable. Respondent. No. 2/surety is liable to pay decretal amount if judgment debtor/Respondent No. 1 fails to pay decretal amount. Resultantly impugned order recorded by learned trial Court is not sustainable. It is set-aside. This revision, is accepted. Learned Executing Court will issue due notice to Respondent No. 2/surety regarding payment of decretal amount and will proceed further in accordance with law.”

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner was confronted to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned Order but he failed to satisfy this Court. The surety is bound by his surety to the extent of Rs. 200,000/- undertaken by him. The impugned Order is unexceptional. The findings recorded by the Revisional Court are in consonance with law and the same require no interference by this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

8. In view of the above, instant Petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.

(Y.A.)  Petition dismissed