Sharma, J.—This is an appeal against the appellate order of the learned Additional district Judge, and arises under the following circumstances.

2. The respondent Nand Kishore filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 600/- and odd against Lachminarain and applied for attachment of certain immovable property. The Court issued a notice and ordered a warrant of attachment of the miiovable peoperty indicated by the decree holder in his application and further ordered that the attachment be not made if the defendant furnishes sufficient security for the decretal amount. A warrant of attachment was made over to the Nazir of the court who reached the spot and found the judgment debtor Lachminarain with certain gold ornaments on. He wanted to attach this property, but after some consultation a surety bond was executed by Pannalal indicating that in case of decree being passed he would pay the decretal amount together with costs. This surety bond was executed on the 15th February, 1947, when the Nazir had gone to the spot for attachment. The case of the decree holder is that this surety bond after execution was handed over by the surety to the Nazir, whereupon, he did not proceed to attach the property. Shortly after however, the surety bond was taken by force from the possession of Giarsilal peon who had accompanied the Nazir. Thereafter there was some scuffle and the attaching party went to the police station, where the Nazir lodged a report. The Nazir made a report to the execution court on the first opening day of the court after the incident. The statement of the Nazir was recorded and a criminal case was launched, but the accused was acquitted. The decree holder thereafter filed his application for execution praying that the decretal amount be realised from the surety Pannalal.

3. The suretys case is that he had not handed over the surety bond after execution to the Nazir or the peon, but retained it with himself. After the execution of the surety bond he asked the defendant to put in his possession the property which was required to be attached, but the defendant declined and, therefore, he tore off the surety bond. Learned Munsif believed the story given by the decree holder, but allowed the objection of the surety on the ground that the surety bond was not veryfied. The decree holder went in appeal and the learned Additional District Judge, Jaipur, has reversed the order of the first court and holding the surety Pannalal liable, has ordered that the execution should proceed.

4. Against the above order, the surety Pannalal has come in appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. K. C. Sanghi on behalf of the appellant surety and Shri S.B.L. Saxena on behalf of the decree holder.

6. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the surety bond was not executed in favour of the court and was never filed and verified in court. The surety did not like that he should be bound unless he had property of the defendant as a guarantee and when the defendant did not give him the property he, instead of delivering the surety bond to the Nazir, tore it off. It was argued that the alleged surety bond creates no liability against the appellant and the decree could not be executed against him by virtue of sec. 145 of the Civil Procedure Code.

7. On behalf of the respondent, it was argued by Mr. Saxena that the surety bond is complete in all respects and it was not necessary that it should have been filed and verified before the court before it became effective. It was further argued that the bond had been delivered to the Nazir who by virtue thereof desisted from attachment. The surety had no authority afterwards to wrest the surety bond from the hands of the agent of the Nazir and tear it off. He is bound by the surety bond

8. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel and have read the surety bond with special care. The following extracts from the surety bond which are relevant to the case when translated read as follows :—

"In the case of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document