Nawal Kishore, J.— This is a plaintiffs appeal against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Jodhpur, holding that the terms of surety bond did not make the surety liable in the execution proceedings. The facts relating to this case are these:—

2. Laxmichand appellant instituted a suit against Rao Raja Gordhansingh for the recovery of Rs. 2,249/- in the Court of Civil Judge, Jodhpur, and on 23rd of February 1949 applied for the issue of a warrant of arrest before judgment against the defendant under Order 38 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. On 28th of February 1949, a warrant was ordered to be issued accordingly and Gokal Prasad, respondent, stood surety and executed a bond as follows:—

eqdnek eqUntkZ vuoku esa eqnk;ys ds cj f[kykQ gLc vksMZj 38 :y 1 tkjh gqvk vkSj tekur nsus dk gqDe btyklk okyk ls gqvk blfy, eSa eqlEeh xksdyizlkn oYn fkoykyth yMk lkfdu tks/kiqj eqlEeh xksj/kuflag oYn fctSflag eqík;yk dh tekur rknknh :- 22461½ nsrk gwW fd eqnk;ys xksj/kuflag gj iskh ij gkftj jgsxk vkSj u viuh tk;nkn bLrfrLr djsxkA vxj og iskh ij gkftj ugha gqvk ;k tk;nkn bLrfoLr djsxk rks eSa [kqn :- 22461 vnk d:axkA

3. Shortly after the execution of this bond, the parties appear to have come to terms and accordingly, on 4th of April, 1949 a consent decree was passed against Gordhan Singh. On 14th of April 1949, Gokal Prasad surety applied under Order 38 rule 3 for being discharged from his obligation as a surety. A notice was issued to the defendant but service could not be effected upon him. Even a warrant of arrest issued against the defendant could not be executed and hence the suretys application remained undisposed of. In the meanwhile, Laxmichand filed an application for execution of the decree and on 13th of October 1949, a notice was issued to the surety either to produce the judgment-debtor or deposit the amount of the bond. The 14th of November 1949 was the date fixed but the judgement- debtor was not present and, accordingly, the surety was directed to deposit Rs. 2,249/-. Against this order, an appeal filed in the Court of the learned District Judge, who set aside the order of the trial Court and held that the surety was not liable as he had undertaken to produce Gordhan Singh only in the suit and not in the execution proceedings.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the learned District Judge is correct. The bond was executed after a warrant of arrest had been issued in terms of Order 38 Rule 1 which were to the effect that Rao Raja Gordhansingh was to be taken into custody and brought before the Court in order that he may show cause why he should not furnish security for the amount of Rs. 2,249/- for his personal appearance before the Court until such time as the said suit was fully and finally disposed of and until satisfaction of any decree that may be passed against him in the suit. According to Form No. 2 in Appendix F. of the Civil Procedure Code, bond is intended to be executed in the every words, that is, the surety undertakes that the defendant shall appear at any time when called upon while the suit is pending and until satisfaction of any decree that may be passed against him in the said suit. The bond in suit was however not executed in these terms and it is clear that Gokal Prasad undertook to produce the defendant only in the suit and agreed to pay the sum of Rs. 2,249/- in case he failed to do so or if the defendant disposed of his property. He did not mention in the bond that the defendant will appear not only while the suit was pending but also until satisfaction of any decree that may be passed against him. The question whether a surety has incurred liability under the bond always depends upon the strict terms of the bond and he cannot be held liable except to the extent to which he has bound himself. If the contingency, in which the bond is sought to be enforced, does not fall within its language, as held in 1948 Mad. 302(1) it is not perm