JUDGMENT

Abdur Rahman, J. - The real question that falls to be determined in this appeal is whether the liability of a surety who has executed a bond in favour of a Court under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure can be held to have come to an end if the creditor for whose benefit the bond was given is found without the surety's knowledge to have entered into a contract with the debtor which would be hit by the provisions contained in Sections 133 to 141, Contract Act, although they are not in terms held to be applicable? The facts out of which the above stated question has emerged may be briefly stated. A suit was brought by one Ram Charan to recover a sum of Rs. 3386-13-0 from Phul Chand on 24th June 1938, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Delhi. The plaintiff then made an application under Order 38, Rule 5, Civil P.C., for attachment before judgment. This was granted on 15th July 1938, and the defendant was directed to furnish a security for a sum of Rs. 1600. Munshi Prithi Singh, the appellant in the present appeal, furnished the security on the same date. The bond executed by him (Ex. D.H./2) was to the effect that if the defendant did not pay the sum of Rs. 15