Back
1927 Supreme(Lah) 89
Lahore High Court
Zafar Ali, J.
Nur Din - Appellant
Versus
Allah Ditta & Ors. - Respondents
Decided On : 18-11-1927
JUDGMENT
Zafar Ali, J. - According to the bond sued one Charagh Din was the principal debtor and Nur Ilahi and Allah Ditta were his sureties. One of the sureties died and the obligee brought a suit against the principal debtor and the surety who was alive, and the sons of the other, to recover his bond debt. The principal debtor also died during the pendency of the suit but his death was not brought to the notice of the trial Court and that Court eventually passed a decree against all the defendants. On appeal by one of them it was argued that the decree against the principal debtor was a nullity, having been passed after his death without bringing his legal representatives on the record that as the suit has abated against the principal debtor by the omission of the plaintiff the sureties were discharged. The learned Additional District Judge, who heard the appeal accepted this contention and dismissed the suit.
2. The plaintiff has come up to this Court in second appeal and it is argued on his behalf that though the suit had abated as against the principal debtor the sureties were not discharged. The principle of law applicable to the case is embodied in Section 134, Contract Act (9 of 1872). The relevant portion of the section runs thus:
The surety is discharged * * by any act or omission of the creditor, the legal consequence of which is the discharge of the principal debtor.
3. Now the legal consequence of the omission on the part of the creditor to bring the legal representatives of the principal debtor on the record was that he (the creditor) had no remedy left against his representatives, that is to say, they were discharged. The section is so clear that no other interpretation can be placed upon it.
4. I, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.
