JUDGMENT CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is real brother general attorney and surety on behalf of Sajjad Miran the respondent in original suit for recovery of maintenance. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 filed a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and delivery expenses which was decreed on 16-4-2009 by the learned Judge Family Court against Sajjad Miran (judgment-debtor) and fixed the maintenance of respondent No.2 @ Rs.4000 per month since February, 2007 till completion of period of `Iddat', while the maintenance of respondent No.3 was fixed @ Rs.6000 per month since February, 2007 with an enhancement of 10 % per annum. A decree for recovery of Rs.17,000 on account of delivery charges was also granted.
2. That the petitioner filed an appeal which was partially accepted and the maintenance allowance of respondent No.3 was reduced to Rs.5000 per month.
3. That respondents Nos.2 and 3 filed execution petition. During execution, learned Executing Court vide order dated 9-4-2010 directed the police to arrest the petitioner, so that decree against Sajjad Miran could be executed.
4. That on 19-4-2010, the petitioner was brought before the Executing Court in handcuff who paid Rs.50,000 as part payment of decretal amount and undertook to pay the balance amount on the next date.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a mere general attorney of judgment-debtor and decree could not be executed against him. The judgment-debtor has gone abroad to Italy. The petitioner is neither a party in the suit nor as guarantor of judgment-debtor, so proceedings against the petitioner be declared as nullity in the eyes of law and learned Executing Court be directed to proceed against the judgment-debtor.
6. Conversely, learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3 has vehemently opposed this writ petition and has contended that the petitioner is real brother general attorney and surety of the judgment-debtor and Executing Court has rightly passed an order to recover the decretal amount in accordance with law from the petitioner, hence writ petition be dismissed.
7. Arguments heard. Record perused.
8. There is no denial that the petitioner is a general attorney and real brother of judgment-debtor.
The petitioner has been pursuing the cases from the very beginning. Perusal of general power of attorney executing by the judgment-debtor in favour of petitioner highlights that the petitioner is also a surety to the judgment-debtor. The relevant para has been reduced in writing at the end of general power of attorney which is re-produced as under:-- "that the deed has been written for the surety and can be produced its necessary."
9. When confronted, learned counsel for the petitioner could not rebut the specific writing of general power of attorney. Further on 19-4-2010 when the petitioner was produced before the Executing Court he instead of raising any objection paid Rs.50,000 in cash to the decree holder in the court and undertook to pay the balance decretal amount in future.
10. In the light bf above discussion, this writ petition has no force. Since the petitioner is a surety, therefore, learned Executing Court has rightly adopted coercive method for the recovery of decretal amount because a surety is presumed to be party to the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.
This writ petition is dismissed.