responsibility of Surety high court case law.
 |
| Surety's responsibility | high court case law. |
ضمانتیوں (Surety) کی ذمہ داری اور عدالتی فیصلہ
1۔ مقدمے کا پس منظر:
مقدمہ شفیع اللہ نے دائر کیا تھا تاکہ عدالت اصل مقدمے کے فیصلے کے مطابق عدالت کے سامنے ضمانتیوں (جواب دہندگان نمبر 1 اور 2) کو رقم کی ادائیگی کے لیے پابند کرے۔ ضمانتیوں نے حلف نامہ پیش کیا تھا کہ اگر فیصلہ شفیع اللہ کے حق میں آیا تو وہ مقررہ رقم کی دوگنا ادائیگی کریں گے۔
2۔ اصل مقدمے اور اپیل:
اصلی مقدمہ نمبر 23/1 میں شفیع اللہ نے مکان کے تنازع پر دعویٰ دائر کیا۔ عدالت نے عارضی حکم (Temporary Injunction) دینے سے انکار کیا کیونکہ جواب دہندگان نمبر 1 اور 2 نے حلف نامہ پیش کیا کہ وہ رقم کی ضمانت دیں گے۔ بعد میں عدالت نے شفیع اللہ کے حق میں فیصلہ دیا، جس کے بعد جواب دہندگان نے اپیل دائر کی، جو مسترد ہو گئی اور فیصلہ حتمی ہو گیا۔
3۔ عمل درآمد اور ناموں کی حذف کاری:
شیف اللہ نے اصل فیصلے کی تکمیل کے لیے اجراِ حکم دائر کیا اور ضمانتیوں کے نام شامل کیے۔ جواب دہندگان نمبر 1 اور 2 نے درخواست دائر کی کہ ان کے نام فہرست سے خارج کیے جائیں، جو 06.06.2013 کے حکم کے ذریعے منظور ہو گئی۔
4۔ عدالت کی وضاحت:
عدالت نے بتایا کہ 145(1) سیول پروسیجر کوڈ (CPC) کے تحت ضمانتی کسی بھی رقم کی ادائیگی کے لیے ذمہ دار ہوتے ہیں جس کے لیے وہ ضمانت دیتے ہیں، اور ان کا نام کسی بھی وقت فہرست میں شامل ہونا چاہیے تاکہ عدالت رقم کی وصولی کر سکے۔
5۔ قانونی حوالہ جات:
عدالت نے سابقہ مقدمات اور قوانین کی بنیاد پر واضح کیا کہ:
ضمانتی کی ذمہ داری اصل مدعی کے برابر ہوتی ہے۔
ضمانتی کا دائرہ کار حلف نامے یا گارنٹی کی حد تک محدود ہے (Contract Act, 1872، سیکشن 126 و 128)۔
145(1) CPC کے تحت ضمانتی کے خلاف فیصلہ نافذ کیا جا سکتا ہے۔
6۔ موجودہ ذمہ داری:
عدالت نے فیصلہ دیا کہ جواب دہندگان نمبر 1 اور 2 کے نام دوبارہ فہرست میں شامل کیے جائیں اور وہ اصل فیصلے کے مطابق رقم کی ادائیگی کریں۔ چونکہ Saifullah Khan (جواب دہندگان میں سے نمبر 1) فوت ہو چکا ہے، اس کی قانونی ورثاء برابر حصے میں رقم کی ادائیگی کے ذمہ دار ہوں گے جبکہ جواب دہندہ نمبر 2 Zahid Ali کو بطور ex-parte رکھا گیا۔
7۔ ہدایات:
عدالت نے ہدایت کی کہ یہ فیصلہ اجرا کی عدالت کے سامنے رکھا جائے تاکہ ضمانتیوں کے خلاف رقم کی وصولی ممکن ہو اور انہیں عدالت کے سامنے پیش کیا جائے۔
8۔ نتیجہ:
اس طرح یہ writ petition منظور ہوئی اور ضمانتیوں کو رقم کی ادائیگی کی قانونی ذمہ داری پوری کرنے کے لیے فہرست میں دوبارہ شامل کیا گیا۔
مقدمے میں، عدالت نے فیصلہ دیا کہ ضمانتیوں (جواب دہندگان نمبر 1 اور 2) کے ناموں کو دوبارہ فہرست میں شامل کیا جائے اور انہیں اصل مقدمے کے فیصلے کے مطابق رقم کی ادائیگی کی ذمہ داری پوری کرنی ہوگی۔
جی ہاں، اس مقدمے میں "ضمانتی" یا "surety" کا ذکر ہے۔
**ضمانتی (Surety):**
مقدمے میں، شفیع اللہ نے دعویٰ کیا کہ جواب دہندگان نمبر 1 اور 2 نے اصل مقدمے کے دوران ادائیگی کی ضمانت دی تھی۔ ان لوگوں نے حلف نامہ پیش کیا تھا کہ اگر مقدمے میں فیصلہ شفیع اللہ کے حق میں آتا ہے تو وہ مقررہ رقم کی دوگنا ادائیگی کریں گے۔
**عدالتی فیصلے میں ضمانتی کا کردار:**
- **ضمانتیوں کی ذمہ داری:** عدالت نے بتایا کہ ضمانتی (جواب دہندگان نمبر 1 اور 2) کی ذمہ داری تھی کہ وہ عدالت کے فیصلے کے مطابق رقم کی ادائیگی کریں۔
- **پانچویں پیراگراف:** یہاں عدالت نے وضاحت کی کہ ضمانتیوں کے نام حکم نامہ دہندگان کی فہرست سے غیر قانونی طور پر حذف کیے گئے تھے، جو کہ سیکشن 145 (1) سی پی سی (Civil Procedure Code) کے مطابق درست نہیں تھا۔
- **قانونی حوالہ:** سیکشن 145 (1) سی پی سی کے تحت، ضمانتیوں کے خلاف حکم نامہ کا نفاذ کیا جا سکتا ہے، اور ان کی ذمہ داری فیصلہ کے مطابق پوری کی جانی چاہیے۔
لہذا، عدالت نے فیصلہ کیا کہ ضمانتیوں (جواب دہندگان نمبر 1 اور 2) کے ناموں کو دوبارہ فہرست میں شامل کیا جائے کیونکہ انہیں رقم کی ادائیگی کی ذمہ داری پوری کرنی تھی۔
Must read judgement
SHEET
IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,
MINGORA BENCH (DAR-UL-QAZA), SWAT
(Judicial Department)
W.P. No. 394-M/2013
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing: 08.06.2017.
Petitioner:- (Shafiullah) by Mr. Yaseen Aman,
Advocate.
Respondents:- Nemo for the Respondents.
MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN, J.- By this writ
petition Shafiullah the Petitioner herein, has set
in the following prayer:-
" In light of the above and many
other grounds to be advance at the time
of hearing with the prior permission of
this Hon'ble Court, it is therefore,
humbly prayed that consequent upon,
the acceptance of this writ petition, the
impugned order of lower Appellate
Court (Respondent No. 7) dated
06.06.2013 may kindly be declared
illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional,
against law and natural justice, and the
Respondents No. 1 & 2 may kindly be
held responsible for the payment of
decretal amount which is outstanding
against the original judgment debtor, as
they stood surety for the payment during
the pendency of the original suit by
filing affidavit in this regard, and the
Respondent No. 8 be directed to proceed
against the Respondents No. 1 & 2
according to law.
Any other remedy coupled with
cost, which is efficacious and
appropriate, in peculiar circumstances
of the case, may please be graciously
granted though not specifically prayed
for."
2. In essence the grievance of the
Petitioner is that he had filed a suit for
declaration cum permanent injunction against
the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondents
No. 3 to 6 and Manager Habib Bank Chakisar
Branch on account of being owner of the house
bearing Khasra No. 1928 situated within the
local limits of Mauza Chakisar. The said house
was crumbled down in the earthquake occurred
in the year 2005 and predecessor-in-interest of
the Respondents No. 3 to 6 was tenant-at-will in
the said house, so, he has no right to construct
the same or receive compensation in lieu of it
from the government exchequer, which has
been issued to the earthquake affectees in the
year 2006. During the pendency of this Civil
Suit No. 23/1, the Petitioner moved an
application for obtaining temporary injunction,
which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court
on 17.07.2007 mainly on the pretext that
learned counsel for the Defendant/Respondents
No. 1 & 2 furnished an affidavit that they will
pay double amount in case of decree in favour
of the Petitioner (hereinbefore called as
Plaintiff).
3. After grant of decree in favour of
Petitioner (hereinbefore called as Plaintiff), an
appeal was preferred bearing No. 144/13 of the
year 2010 on behalf of the Respondents No. 1
&2, which was also answered in negative vide
the order dated 13.10.2011 by the learned
District Judge/Zila Qazi Shangla and being not
assailed further the said order has attained
finality. For satisfaction of the decree, the
Petitioner (hereinbefore called as
Plaintiff/decree-holder) filed execution petition
before the learned Executing Court i.e.
Respondent No. 8 by adding names of the
Respondents No. 1 & 2 in the column of
judgment debtors. The other part filed cross
Nawab
objection petition bearing No. 1/11 of the year
2012 before the learned Executing Court, which
was left undecided as learned appellate Court
suspended the execution proceedings in wake of
the pendency of civil revision bearing No. 19/5
of 2012. In the meanwhile, the Respondents No.
1 & 2 submitted revision petition for deletion of
their names from the panel of judgment debtors
in the execution proceedings, which was
allowed vide the impugned order dated
06.06.2013, resultantly names of the
Respondents No. 1 & 2 were deleted from the
list of judgment debtors. Having no other
alternate remedy the Petitioner/decree-holder
approached this Court through the writ petition
in hand inter-alia on the grounds mentioned
therein.
4. Having heard arguments of learned
counsel for the Petitioner, while despite hectic
efforts service of the Respondents could not be
procured, hence most of them have been placed
ex-parte.
Nawab
5
5. The impugned order dated
06.06.2016 is gone through, it reveals that the
Petitioners, who were herein the Respondents
were not arrayed party in the original suit
bearing No. 23/1 decided by the learned Civil
Court, therefore no decree was passed against
each of the judgment debtor in the execution
proceedings. Hence, the petition was accepted
and names of the Petitioners herein now the
Respondents/judgment debtors in the execution
proceedings of the decree dated 24.5.2010 were
deleted from file No. 2/10 of 2012 pending
adjudication before the learned Executing
Court, Chakisar.
6. Hence the impugned order in view
of the provisions of Section 145 (1) of the Civil
Procedure Code has not been passed in
accordance with law, which reads as under:-
145. Enforcement of liability of
surety. Where any person has become
liable as surety---
a) for the performance of any
decree or any part thereof, or
6
b) for the restitution of any property
taken in execution of a decree, or
c) for payment of any money, or for
the fulfillment of any condition imposed
on any person, under an order of the
Court in any suit or in any proceedings
consequent thereon,
the decree or order may executed
against him, to the extent to which he has
rendered himself personally liable, in the
manner herein provided for the execution
of decrees, and such person shall, for the
purpose of appeal, be deemed a party
within the meaning of Section 47.
Provided that such notice as the
Court in each case thinks sufficient has
been given to the surety.
7. During pendency of the execution
proceedings an objection petition was filed
before the learned executing Court, wherein it
was specifically mentioned therein in Para V in
respect of taking over of the responsibility by
sureties/guarantors for payment of an amount
released from the government exchequer for
renovation of the house damaged during the
earthquake which was withdrawn from Habib
Bank Chakisar Branch. It has also been held in
2000 CLC 451 "Habib Bank Limited vs Malik
Ata Muhammad and 4 others". The relevant
citations (a) & (e) are reproduced as under:-
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
S.s 47 & 145. Execution of decree.
Liability of surety. Survey not arrayed
as party to suit or appeal. Execution of
decree against such surety. Validity.
Decree passed against a judgmentdebtor could also be executed against
such surety, which was not even
arrayed as a party to suit or appeal.
Liability of the surety was co-extensive
with the judgment-debtor and continued
till such tune that the decree was either
satisfied by the judgment-debtor or by
the surety.
(e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Ss. 147 & 96. Liability of surety. Scope.
Appeal was continuation of suit. If
appeal was accepted, the liability of the
surety was revived. Such received
liability could be enforced against the
surety.
8
8. Under the Contract Act, 1872 that
even a guarantor can only be burdened to the
extent and in accordance with the terms of the
guarantee executed by him. In this respect,
reliance has been placed on 2002 CLD 509
''Mst. Parveen Amir vs National Bank of
Pakistan and 3 others''. The relevant citation
(b) is reproduced as under:-
(b) Contract Act (IX of 1872)
...Ss. 126 & 128.. Liability of guarantor.
Extent. Guarantor could only be
burdened to the extent and in accordance
with the terms of guarantee executed by
him.''
The liability of the guarantor being
co-extensive with judgment debtor and surety is
liable by all means to fulfill his commitment in
respect of the payment with regard to which he
has taken the responsibility for its payment. The
learned Executing Court can lawfully proceed
against the sureties for the recovery of the
amount to the extent of decree, thus, the names
of the Respondents No. 1 & 2 were unlawfully
9
deleted from the panel of judgment debtors in
the execution proceedings by acceptance of
the revision petition by the learned District
Judge/Zila Qazi Shangla through the
impugned order, which stands set aside, the
sureties cannot be exempted from the liability
of the payment in such hasty manner in
violation of the provision of Section 145 (1) of
the Civil Procedure Code.
9. It is as learnt that out of the
Respondents, Saifullah Khan, Respondent No.
1 has died, so his Legal Heirs are liable to pay
the decretal amount in equal share, while the
Respondent No. 2 Zahid Ali has been placed
ex-parte as he was only interested to defend
his rights in this writ petition.
10. Copy of this judgment be placed
before the learned Executing Court for the
recovery of decretal amount from
guarantors/sureties, exclusively who shall be
summoned before the learned executing Court.
10
11. In such terms this writ petition is
accepted accordingly.
Announced
Dt: 08.06.2017. JUDGE