MUHAMMAD NAEEM vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, Gujranwala O — 2025 CLC 1124 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD NAEEM VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, Gujranwala O. II, Rr. 1 & 2 & S. 145---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 128---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Family suit for dissolution of marriage, recovery of dower, dowry articles and maintenance allowance---Decree passed against judgment-debtor---Execution initiated---Attachment of property---Validity---'Surety' and, 'Special Attorney'---Legal distinction---Scope of surety's liability---Execution of decree---Scope---Special Attorney appeared on behalf of the judgment-debtor under a Special Power of Attorney---On failure to satisfy the decree, the Special Attorney was ordered to be sent to civil prison---Petitioner furnished a surety bond for release of the Special Attorney---Subsequently, the immovable property of the petitioner mentioned in the surety bond was attached and put to auction for non-satisfaction of the decree---Objection petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Executing and Appellate courts---Held: The Special Attorney on behalf of judgment debtor was neither impleaded as defendant in the suit nor the suit was decreed against him rather he appeared in the Court only in the capacity of Special Attorney on behalf of judgment-debtor---In absence of any decree against the Special Attorney or specific clause to this effect in Special Power-of-Attorney, the Executing Court could satisfy the decree only against judgment debtor but not against Special Attorney, who never appeared in suit in his personal capacity but only as Special Attorney of the judgment-debtor---In these circumstances, order for arrest of Special Attorney and sending him to civil prison for execution of decree was not warranted in law---Consequently, the surety bond by petitioner for release of Special Attorney was also neither required nor enforceable---No doubt the judgment debtor was bound to satisfy the decree either himself or through the attorney, however, in the present case it was not shown from the Special Power of Attorney that judgment debtor required Special Attorney to burden the liability for satisfaction of decree---There was no doubt that Special Attorney was not liable for execution of decree, consequently, the surety bond executed by petitioner for release of Special Attorney could not be made basis to attach his immoveable property for satisfaction of decree---Though the surety bond was also on behalf of judgment debtor besides the Special Attorney, however, when petitioner was not required in first place to execute the surety bond for release of Special Attorney, then whole superstructure on the basis of illegal detention order would crumble down and petitioner's property could not be auctioned merely because he mentioned the name of judgment debtor in his surety bond, which was not required to be executed in the first instance---Writ petition was allowed.

MUHAMMAD NAEEM vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, Gujranwala O — 2025 CLC 1124 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC