##PAGE1##

CR-7016-2025 (O&M) -1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

-.-

CR-7016-2025 (O&M)

Reserved on:-12.12.2025

Pronounced on : 19.12.2025

Uploaded on:- 19.12.2025

Whether only operative part of the judgment is

Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment

Jitender Bhatia ....Petitioner

VERSUS

Bimla Ahuja and Others ....Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present: Mr. Bharat Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kunal Dawar, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, Advocate and

Ms. Shruti Mandhotra, Advocate for respondents/caveators.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 31.05.2023

passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad whereby the appeal

preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Executing Court was dismissed

and the order directing the petitioner, as surety, to comply with the security

furnished by him was affirmed.

2. The respondent is present through counsel as caveator. Learned

counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the caveator-respondent have

been heard at length and the record has been carefully perused.

3. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that during the pendency of the

civil suit filed by the decree-holder, an application under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC was

TRIPTI SAINI

2025.12.19 15:23

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-7016-2025 (O&M) -2

moved. While disposing of the said application, the Trial Court, instead of ordering

attachment of the property of the defendant, directed the defendant to furnish

security to the satisfaction of the Court. In compliance thereof, the present

petitioner voluntarily furnished a security/surety bond undertaking to secure the

amount mentioned therein. Subsequently, the suit was decreed. Thereafter,

execution proceedings were initiated by the decree-holder, wherein the Executing

Court directed the petitioner, being the surety, to comply with the obligation

arising from the security bond.

4. The principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the

order passed under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC operates only at the pre-judgment stage

and that once the suit stood decreed, the said order lost its efficacy and the

Executing Court could not proceed against the surety. The said contention is

wholly misconceived and cannot be accepted.

5. Order 38 Rule 5 CPC is a preventive provision intended to secure the

fruits of a possible decree. Where, instead of ordering attachment before judgment,

the Court directs furnishing of security and a security/surety bond is furnished

pursuant thereto, the bond stands as a substitute for attachment. The purpose of

such security is to ensure satisfaction of the decree in the event the suit is

ultimately decreed. Merely because the suit has been decreed does not render the

security bond otiose or unenforceable. What comes to an end is the pre-judgment

stage of the proceedings, not the substantive obligation undertaken by the surety.

6. Once the suit is decreed, the security furnished pursuant to an order

under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC survives and enures to the benefit of the decree-holder.

At the stage of execution, the liability of the surety arises in terms of the bond

furnished by him. Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure specifically

empowers the Executing Court to execute the decree against a person who has

TRIPTI SAINI

2025.12.19 15:23

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-7016-2025 (O&M) -3

become liable as a surety for the performance of the decree. For this purpose, such

surety is deemed to be a party to the proceedings and execution can be levied

against him to the extent of his liability under the bond.

7. The argument that the Executing Court must first exhaust all remedies

against the principal judgment-debtor before proceeding against the surety also has

no merit. There is no inflexible rule of law requiring