' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.--- Through this writ petition petitioner Akbar son of Soobay Khan has assailed the order dated 26-9-2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Vehari, whereby he rejected the civil revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 19-12-2008 of the Civil Judge, Vehari, imposing the condition to deposit the decretal amount before considering his objection petition.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent No,1 Muhammad Ikhtiar brought a suit before the learned District Judge, Vehari, in his original civil jurisdiction for recovery of an amount of Rs,5,00,000 on the basis of pro note dated 14-3-2002, against respondent No,2 Muhammad Yousaf alias Aoosa son of Qasim Ali. The said suit was decreed in favour of respondent No,1 and against respondent No,2 vide judgment and decree dated 5-5-2006; that the respondent No,1/decreeholder instead of getting the decree executed against respondent No,2, got attached the property owned by the petitioner, and the petitioner filed an objection petition before the learned executing Court denying that he was surety of the decretal amount, rather he had stood surety only for the appearance of respondent No,2/judgment-debtor before the Court and further that about one year before passing of the decree in the suit the petitioner had filed an application for withdrawal of the surety bond; that along with the objection petition the petitioner also filed an application for interim injunction for the release of his property; that the learned executing Court vide order dated 19-12-2008 imposed a condition for depositing the decretal amount of Rs,5,15,022 before his objection was considered. The petitioner felt aggrieved against the said order dated 19- 12-2008 and filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Vehari, along with which he filed an application seeking suspension of the operation of the order dated 19-12-2008 of the executing Court/Civil Judge, Vehari. The said appeal was converted into reversion petition. The said revision petition was dismissed by the learned District Judge vide order dated 26-9-2009. The said order has been assailed through this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decree was not passed against the petitioner, but it was passed against respondent No,2 Muhammad Yousaf so the learned executing Court wrongly ordered the petitioner to deposit Rs,5,15,022. Further submits that the petitioner was only surety for appearance of respondent No,2/judgment debtor before the executing Court therefore he could not be held responsible for the amount of decree passed in favour of respondent No,1, as such the order passed by the executing Court is illegal, without lawful authority, void ab initio and it should be set aside, and that the executing Court should attach the property of the judgment debtor/respondent No,2 and not of the petitioner.
4. I have heard the petitioner and perused the file. Learned counsel for the petitioner admitted himself in the petition that the petitioner stood surety for respondent No,2. It is a settled principle of law that if the principal fails to fulfil his obligations, the surety steps into the shoes of the principal to do that, as such the surety is as responsible as the judgment-debtor for payment of the decretal amount. Reliance is placed on the cases reported as Rafique Hazquel Masih v. Bank Alfalah Ltd., and others 2005 SCM R 72 and Messrs State Engineering Corporation Ltd. v. National Development Finance Corporation and others 2006 CLD 687.
5. In the case of Rafique Hazquel Masih 2005 SCM R 72, supra, it has been held by the honourable Supreme Court as Under:- "---The liability of the surety under section 128 of the Contract Act is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, unless it is otherwise provided by the contract---In absence of any specific stipulation in the contract, a guarantor cannot take up the plea that the Bank should enforce the liability against the principal debtor before proceedings against the guarantor. The reason being that the Bank grants loan only on the guarantee and in absence of letter/contract of guarantee the Bank may not have sanctioned the loan."
6. In the other cited case of Messrs State Engineering Corporation Ltd. 2006 CLD 687 also the honourable Supreme Court held that:--- "---Section 128 is applicable in the given circumstances. The liability of the guarantor/surety is co- extensive with that of the principal debtor, unless it is otherwise provided by the contract as envisaged in section 128 of the Contract Act, 1872. They are jointly and severally liable to pay the outstanding amount to the creditor. A guarantor cannot shirk from the liabilities incurred by him through the execution of documents..."
' Same is the position in the case in hand, where the petitioner stood guarantor/surety for payment of the amount of decree and submitted surety bond before the learned trial Court for payment of the amount, which wQuld be decreed against the defendant. The contention of the petitioner is that first proceedings should be taken against the judgment-debtor then proceedings against the petitioner is not tenable in view of the ratio in the above cited judgment of the honourable Supreme Court.
7. The case-law, that is Asghar Abbas v. Muhammad Ramzan and 4 others 1993 CLC 1313 (Lahore), Mst. Hamida Begum and 6 others v. The Additional District Judge, Lahore and 5 others 1986 CLC 1697 (Lahore), and National Bank of Pakistan v. S.R. Rehmatuilah and another PLD 1970 Lah. 330, referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions, is not akin to the facts of the case of the petitioner.
8. The learned executing Court correctly rejected the application of the petitioner and passed the impugned order dated 19-12-2008. The learned Additional District Judge has also rightly dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner.