SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.--- The basic facts involved in this appeal appear to be that the respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs,25,80,000 under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. Contending that nine cheques issued by the appellant in his favour had been dishonoured. The suit was decreed in the respondent's favour and thereupon the appellant filed 1st appeal No,4 of 2007 before the Honourable High Court. The appeal was admitted for regular hearing subject to the directions requiring the appellant to furnish surety to the extent of the decretal amount i,e, Rs,25,80,000. It appears that in compliance with the aforesaid order the appellant submitted title deeds of a property owned by him together with valuation certificate indicating the value of the property to be about Rs,40,00,000. The respondent objected before the Nazir receiving the surety that the property was highly over-valued. Nevertheless the Nazir attempted to ascertain the market value of the property through his staff from estate agencies and was informed that the value ranged between 30,00,000 to 32,00,000 and submitted his report before the Court. On the basis of the aforesaid report the impugned order was passed whereby the learned Judge directed that the property offered could not be accepted as security because its value was less than 40,00,000 and consequently directed the appellant to furnish fresh security in the amount of Rs,40,00,000 within one month.
2. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and it is ex fade apparent that through a judicial order, dated 21-11-2007 the honorable Judge herself had only directed the appellant to furnish surety in the amount of Rs,25,80,000. It is totally incomprehensible that when the title document in respect of the property were admitted to be valued at more than the amount ordered by the Court how the Honourable Judge was persuaded to hold that such surety could not be accepted. Indeed the valuation certificate furnished by the appellant might have represented an exaggerated value, the fact remains that the Nazir himself had found the property worth more than the amount directed to be furnished as security. Indeed, no reasons for reviewing the earlier order, dated 21-11-2007 passed by the same learned Judge have been assigned nor it is shown on what basis the figure of 40,00,000 was arrived at.
3. Mr. Ghulam Qadir Jatoi, learned counsel for the respondent stated that in the meantime the respondent's claim together with mark-up would have reached to about 40,00,000. We are amazed by this logic because by that taken every security furnished before a Court would invariably be required to be periodically revised because of additions to the respondent's claim.
4. In view of the above we would allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and direct that the security furnished before the High Court be accepted. At the same time, we are constrained to observe that greater care needs to be undertaken by the Honourable Judges of the High Court to help parties in avoiding litigation before this Court at considerable time and expense and causing delay in delivery of justice.