HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION through Project Director, Islamabad vs Dr — 2025 PLD 41 ISLAMABAD

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

HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION through Project Director, Islamabad VS Dr. NOUSHEEN IRAM S. 2(5)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 514(6)---Contract---Surety bond---Liability upon guarantor beyond his death---Scope---Abatement of the suit against deceased guarantor---Scope---Higher Education Commission (HEC) filed suit for recovery of the scholarship funds extended to a scholar, claiming that breach of the scholarship agreement was occasioned as the defendant/scholar did not serve in Pakistan for 5 years in terms of the scholarship agreement after completion of her Ph.D degree---Plaintiff/HEC filed constitutional petition being aggrieved of an order passed by the Trial Court whereby abatement of the suit against defendant/guarantor, due to his death, was ordered---Plea of the respondent (defendant/scholar) was that her father (defendant), who stood as a guarantor for her, had passed away before the suit was filed---Contention of the petitioner (plaintiff/HEC) was that the guarantee bound the legal heirs and the suit could continue with guarantor/defendant 's legal heirs impleaded---Petitioner (HEC) referred to the language in the surety bond executed jointly by the two defendants (scholar and guarantor) which contained the language as "we hereby bind ourselves, each of us, and each of our heirs, executors administrators jointly and severally" ('language-in-question')---Whether the language-in-question was effective to bind the legal heirs of the guarantor for them to be impleaded in his stead and for the suit to continue against them?---Held, that pertinently, language-in-question appeared in an instrument titled "surety bond" which, in a strict sense, is not the same thing as an instrument of guarantee---Instrument of guarantee executed by the father of scholar (guarantor/defendant) was expressly titled "Guarantee" in which no language binding his heirs or successors appeared---Instrument in which the language-in-question appeared was titled "surety bond" and, by executing two separate instruments in the same transaction with different titles, it could not be said that both the instruments were guarantee instruments---Expression "bond" is not defined in the Contract Act, 1872, while the expression "guarantee" is---Expression "bond" does appear in other statutes i.e., apart from the Limitation Act, 1908, S. 2(5) of the Stamp Act, 1899, defines "bond"; cumulative effect of which is that the expression "bond" entails a personal liability and in the ordinary course does not apply to the estate of a person---As per S. 514(6) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, the death of a surety to a bond dying before the bond's forfeiture leads to his estate being discharged from all liability in respect of the bond---A bond generally is given for the performance by the giver of a personal obligation and not for the performance of a contractual promise of a third person (e.g. bail bond, indemnity bond, bottomry bond etc. through a performance bond or bid bond may be exception to this general rule)---Therefore, a much higher threshold has to be met where the argument for survival of liability beyond death relates to a bond---Resultantly, the impugned order was correct to conclude that the suit to the extent of defendant/guarantor(father of scholar) was to abate on his death---Constitutional petition, filed by Higher Education Commission, was dismissed.

HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION through Project Director, Islamabad vs Dr — 2025 PLD 41 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD