Skip to content


Pena Ana Lana Alagammai Achi Vs. Als. Al. Aurunachalam Chettiar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1935Mad543
AppellantPena Ana Lana Alagammai Achi
RespondentAls. Al. Aurunachalam Chettiar and anr.
Excerpt:
- - the district munsif was of opinion that under the bond the surety was bound to pay the decree amount because he (the judgment-debtor) failed to observe one of the conditions, viz......from the order of the district munsif of devakottah on an application by a. surety to cancel the security bond executed by him after giving him an opportunity to produce the judgment-debtor referred to in the security bond on a. date fixed by the court. the security bond in question was given in connexion with the arrest of the judgment-debtor in execution. when the judgment-debtor was brought under arrest the petitioner, viz., the surety, executed a security bond as a result of which the judgment-debtor was released. the district munsif was of opinion that under the bond the surety was bound to pay the decree amount because he (the judgment-debtor) failed to observe one of the conditions, viz., the filing of an insolvency petition within a month. the application of the surety was.....
Judgment:

Pandrang Row, J.

1. This is an appeal from the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Devakottah dated 21st March 1933 in A.S. No. 3 of 1933, in appeal from the order of the District Munsif of Devakottah on an application by a. surety to cancel the security bond executed by him after giving him an opportunity to produce the judgment-debtor referred to in the security bond on a. date fixed by the Court. The security bond in question was given in connexion with the arrest of the judgment-debtor in execution. When the judgment-debtor was brought under arrest the petitioner, viz., the surety, executed a security bond as a result of which the judgment-debtor was released. The District Munsif was of opinion that under the bond the surety was bound to pay the decree amount because he (the judgment-debtor) failed to observe one of the conditions, viz., the filing of an insolvency petition within a month. The application of the surety was accordingly dismissed by the District Munsif.

2. The Subordinate Judge on appeal1 took a different view of the bond executed by the surety who appealed to him, and he set aside the order of the District Munsif and remanded the application for disposal afresh after giving the surety an opportunity to produce the judgment-debtor. The present appeal is by the decree-holder in the suit who got the judgment-debtor arrested. The question for decision in this appeal turns entirely on the interpretation of the relevant portion of this security bond executed by the surety which runs as follows:

If the defendant (judgment-debtor) fails to file an insolvency petition within one month, or if he fails to prosecute it properly up to the stage of discharge I shall produce the defendant before this Court and the insolvency Court on any day that may be fixed by the Court. If, as aforesaid, there is default anywise I shall be liable to pay the entire decree amount out of my properties.

3. The question is whether this latter part of the bond makes the surety liable for the whole decree amount if the insolvency petition is riot filed within a month. The Subordinate Judge found that, as a surety, the liability was only to produce the judgment-debtor before the Court in case the insolvency petition was not filed within a month and that the surety was entitled to be given this opportunity of producing the judgment-debtor in Court after a date is fixed by the Court. I am of opinion that this interpretation of the Principal Subordinate Judge is correct and that there is DO substance in this appeal. The appeal therefore is dismissed with Costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //