1. ' Admittedly the petition has been filed by the petitioner who stood guarantor for the respondent for repayment of the loan and it appears that the creditors claim has been decreed by the Banking Court and the petitioner's property has been exposed to auction pursuant to a decree passed against the respondent and petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is exposed to financial liability on account of default of the respondent therefore, in terms of section 305 react with section 309 of the Companies Ordinance 1984 is contingent creditors and entitled to seek winding up of the respondent to set off the liability to which petitioner may be exposed. In terms of section 309(d) ibid contingent creditors, to maintain such petition, is required to furnish security under section 309(d) learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to case reported Ehsanullah Tarar v. Messrs Hafizabad Straw Board Mills Ltd. And 3 others PLD 1994 Lahore 160, wherein the contingent petitioner was required to furnish security in the sum of Rs.20,000.
2. ' Under circumstances, let in the first instance petitioner furnish security in the sum of Rs.25,000 to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court within two weeks, whereafter this petition be fixed for hearing of the main petition before a regular Bench.