2020 CLC 970
S. 5, Sched & S. 17---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 128---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 145---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance---Execution petition---Liability of surety to pay decretal amount---Scope---Petitioner stood surety of judgment debtor who was sent to civil prison later on---Executing Court passed direction to the surety for payment of decretal amount---Surety moved an application for summoning of father to satisfy the decree which was dismissed---Validity---If father of minors was poor then it was the obligation of grandfather in easy circumstances to maintain his grandchildren---Grandchildren had right to claim maintenance allowance from their grandfather---Said right of grandchildren did not absolve either judgment debtor or surety from making payment of the decretal amount to the minors in terms of surety bond submitted before the Executing Court by making himself liable to make payment in case the father of the minors did not appear or make said payment---Liability of surety was co-extensive with that of principal debtor unless it was otherwise provided by the contract---Petitioner had submitted surety for Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid in default of judgment debtor and while accepting such liability he had not made the same conditional upon or subject to any claim of the minors against grandfather---Petitioner-surety had no right to claim that the decretal amount be recovered from the judgment debtor or anyone else---Arrest of judgment debtor did not absolve the surety from making payment of decretal amount and his liability was joint and several with the judgment-debtor---Provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 had not been made applicable to the proceedings before family Court but said Court was empowered to adopt any procedure to regulate its own proceedings and even adopt principles of Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Surety might be proceeded against for enforcement of his liability as provided under S.145 of C.P.C......Petition was dismissed.....
0 Comments