MEHBOOB ALAM vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE S — 2025 CLC 1820 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.

MEHBOOB ALAM VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE S. 5, Sched.---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.128 ---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and dowry articles---Decree---Execution of decree against a surety---Surety, liability of---Auctioning of his (surety) properties for satisfaction of decree---Ambiguity in surety bond, effect of---Despite the ambiguity in surety bond, the undertaking given by the surety at the back of it would be binding upon him---Facts in brevity were that the petitioner stood as a surety for the judgment-debtor in execution proceedings arising from an ex-parte decree passed by the family court for recovery of maintenance and dowry articles in favour of respondent No.3 (lady) and her minors---The decree was suspended by the executing court subject to furnishing a surety bond equal to the remaining decretal amount, and the petitioner submitted a surety bond---Upon continued non-compliance of decree by the judgment debtor, executing court passed orders for the auction of the petitioner's (surety) property to satisfy the decree, leading to the filing of the instant writ petition challenging such orders---Pivotal point for determination before the High Court was "whether the executing court lawfully proceeded against the petitioner (surety) for full satisfaction of the decree, including attachment and auction of his property, in light of the ambiguity between the written contents of the surety bond and the petitioner's undertaking recorded on its reverse side"---Held: Contents of the surety bond showed that it was to the extent of Rs.160,000/-, but the statement of the surety, recorded by the court, on the backside of the surety bond, clearly showed that petitioner stood surety for the remaining decretal amount at that time---The statement recorded by the petitioner on the backside of surety bond described that in case of non-payment of decretal amount by the judgment-debtor, petitioner (surety) would have no objection upon satisfaction of the decree by way of attachment of his (surety) property---Petitioner undertook to satisfy the remaining decretal amount, whereas the surety bond submitted on his behalf contained altogether different version---There was clear ambiguity found in the surety bond, whereas, the undertaking given by petitioner on the backside thereof was not ambiguous and its plain reading led to no other meaning but that the petitioner / surety held himself responsible for satisfaction of the entire remaining amount and offered his property to be attached in case of default by the judgment-debtor---Surety bond must be read in its ordinary meaning and when words contained therein were unambiguous, there was no reason to apply any other to its construction, however, in this case, the contents of surety bond were vague and unclear as compared to the undertaking given by petitioner---Petitioner (surety) himself made him liable to pay the decretal amount in place of the judgment-debtor on his failure to satisfy the decree---The petitioner (surety) then could not wriggle out of his own undertaking---Decree could also be executed against a surety---As regards petitioner's stance that after arrest of judgment-debtor / respondent No.4, he was absolved from making payment of decretal amount, arrest of judgment-debtor did not absolve the surety from making payment of decretal amount as his liability was joint and several with the judgment-debtor---Petitioner (surety) was liable to pay the remaining decretal amount---No jurisdictional defect or material irregularity was pointed out by the petitioner (surety) in the orders under challenge---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstance.

MEHBOOB ALAM vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE S — 2025 CLC 1820 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC