Surety responsible only for the amounts which is written in not for all decretal amount .

Responsibility of surety



جی ہاں، اس کیس میں ضمانتی دادا تھا۔ درخواست گزار نے ضمانت کے طور پر دادا کی طرف سے بچوں کے نگہداشت اور خرچہ کے فیصلے کو پورا کرنے کے لیے رقم فراہم کی تھی۔

دادا بچوں کا سرپرست تھا اور اس نے پریشانی کی صورت میں بچوں کے خرچے اور دیگر واجبات کے لیے ضمانت دی تھی۔ تاہم، درخواست گزار نے یہ موقف اختیار کیا کہ وہ صرف اس رقم کے لیے ذمہ دار ہیں جو انہوں نے ضمانت کے طور پر فراہم کی تھی، نہ کہ پورے فیصلہ شدہ رقم کے لیے۔

عدالت نے اس موقف کو تسلیم کرتے ہوئے درخواست گزار کو اس مخصوص رقم کی ادائیگی کا ذمہ دار قرار دیا، جس کے لیے وہ ضمانت دے چکے تھے۔


2024 C L C 1744

[Lahore (Multan Bench)]

Before Ahmad Nadeem Arshad, J

MASOOD-UL-HASSAN----Petitioner

Versus

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others----Respondents

Writ Petition No.5215 of 2022, decided on 2nd July, 2022.

(a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)---

----S.5, Sched.---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.128---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.145---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and dowry article---Execution proceedings---Satisfaction of decree by grandfather of minors---Extent and scope---Surety's liability---Contention of the petitioner being surety of grandfather of minors was that he was only responsible for satisfaction of decree to the extent of his surety given for grandfather of minors, but not for the satisfaction of the whole decree---Validity---Grandfather of the minors could be bound only to the extent of maintenance of the minors being their grandfather, if he had easy circumstances to pay the same---When the courts had let off/released the grandfather from the responsibility of satisfying the decree, then how his surety (petitioner) was responsible to satisfy the same---Contract of surety provided that the maximum liability of surety was to the tune of Rs.400,000/----Orders of Executing Court did not mention that the grandfather would arrange a surety for the payment of the entire decretal amount--- Petitioner stood suretyfor a specific amount which he had paid before the Executing Court on different occasions as detailed in the application to discharge him from the liability of surety---Said fact was not denied by the respondents, therefore, the petitioner had satisfied the amount for which he stood surety---Constitutional petition was accepted accordingly.

(b) Contract Act (IX of 1872)---

----S.128---Surety's liability---Scope---Surety's liability is co-extensive with that of the judgment-debtor and he is as much bound by his undertaking as is the judgment-debtor and both are collectively and severely liable to make payment to the decree-holder---While construing the tenure and extent of surety bond, the words and recitals of the surety bond must be taken into consideration to gather the intention of the executant of said bond and the bond must be strictly construed---Surety is liable only upto the extent to which he is clearly bound.

       Muhammad Afzal Chaudhary and Muhammad Akhtar Chaudhry for Petitioners.

       Ejaz Hussain Mughal for Respondents Nos.2-4.

 


For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.





  













 



 







































 





































and

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Property ki taqseem ,Warasat main warson ka hisa

Punishment for violation of section 144 crpc | dafa 144 in Pakistan means,kia hai , khalaf warzi per kitni punishment hu gi،kab or kese lagai ja ja sakti hai.

Bachon ki custody of minors after divorce or separation