M.M. KUMAR, J. - This is defendant's appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, "the Code") challenging judgment and decree dated August 13, 1982 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala, holding that the plaintiff-respondents are entitled to issuance of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from recovering a sum of Rs. 6,971 or any other amount either itself or through its agent as arrears of land revenue or otherwise from the plaintiff-respondents.

Brief facts of the case which have led to the filing of the instant appeal are that plaintiff-respondents had filed Civil Suit No. 309 of 1979, 241 of November 2, 1977 for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from recovering a sum of Rs. 6,971 or any other amount from the plaintiff-respondents as arrears of land revenue or otherwise on account of the fact that they were sureties for the firm M/s. Gita Brothers, Naraingarh, with the Excise and Taxation Department. The surety bond submitted by plaintiff-respondent No. 1, Dharam Singh was neither accepted nor attested by or on behalf of Excise and Taxation Department or any other person authorised by it. However, the department on furnishing the surety bonds by Dharam Singh plaintiff-respondent No. 1 on March 6, 1973 has issued sales tax licence to the firm M/s. Gita Brothers, Naraingarh. It was claimed by the defendant-appellant that surety bond stood accepted impliedly.

The learned trial court took the view that surety bond submitted by Dharam Singh, plaintiff-respondent No. 1, was for consideration and non-mentioning of word "accepted" is not material as long as sales tax licence was issued to the firm M/s. Gita Brothers and plaintiff-respondent No. 2, Pritam Lal should be deemed to have undertaken to pay the dues of plaintiff-respondent No. 1, Dharam Singh. The recovery was ordered to be effected from either of the two respondents and the suit was dismissed. However, the learned lower Appellate Court reversed the findings by observing that acceptance of the surety bond was required to be expressed and the word "acceptance" cannot be read into the surety bond. It further held that issuance of sales tax licence is of no consequence for the purposes of implying such an acceptance. Consequently, the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondents was accepted by issuing perpetual injunction against the defendant-appellant restraining it to recover the aforesaid amount. The observations of the learned Additional District Judge in this regard read as under :

"The sole submission made in appeal before me by Shri B. B. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants, while impugning the correctness of the findings of the learned trial Judge on issue No. 1 whereunder he found that the impugned surety bond furnished by plaintiff No. 1 had been impliedly accepted, is that there could never have been any question of the so called implied acceptance of the surety bond in question and that on the other hand, it was imperative for the Excise and Taxation Department to formally accept the same through the competent authority who was required to record the word 'accepted' with the date of acceptance and signatures. It appears that the learned trial Judge was by and large influenced by the fact that the department concerned had already issued the sales tax licence to M/s. Gita Brothers, Naraingarh, on the strength of the impugned surety bond for holding that there was implied acceptance thereof which was a valid and legal one. The learned trial Judge had also relied upon Dalichand v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1976 Raj 112 in arriving at the aforementioned conclusion. In that case, failure on the part of the Collector to mention the period in column No. 4 of the certificate, was a mere irregularity and no prejudice was held to have been caused to the surety on that score. However, in my considered opinion, in the instant case, the surety bond furnished by plaint