1. ' This revision application is directed against the order of the District Judge, Sanghar, rejecting appeal of the applicant filed against the order of Civil Judge, refusing grant of an injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1. And 2, C. P. C.
2. ' The applicant has stood surety in the sum of Rs, 1,40,000 in respect of a contract awarded to respondents 4 and 5 by respondent 2 for collection of Octroi and Toll Tax for the year 1972-73. It appears that certain dues in respect of the above contract were outstanding against respondents 4 and 5 which were not paid' by them. Accordingly the applicant as a surety was called upon through notice dated 3rd August, 1980, to pay a sum of Rs, 1,40,000. The applicant instituted a civil suit challenging the legality of the notice issued to him and alongwith the suit also filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151, C. P. C. Praying for an interim injunction restraining the respondent from recovering the amount mentioned in the notice. The trial court refused the injunction on the ground that from the documents produced it appeared that applicant had stood surety for payment of a sum of Rs, 1.40,000. The 1st appellate Court also agreed with the trial Court. Mr. Mohammad Ali Chohan, the learned' counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant had stood surety only for payment of the 1st instalment and, therefore, his client was not liable in, case of default in payment of subsequent instalments. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the respondents I to 3 allowed time to respondents 4 and 5 for payment of the amount without the consent and knowledge of applicant and, therefore, applicant stood discharged as a surety. The document Annexure "C" which is claimed by respondents 1 to 3 as a surety bond is challenged by the applicant as inadmissible in evidence. The above contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant can be decided appropriately at the trial of the suit when the parties will have full opportunity of placing the entire evidence on record before Court. Mr. Shaikh Haider, 'the learned counsel for respondent 2 admitts before me that the amount is sought to be recovered from the applicant as arrears of land revenue. It is not disputed by the learned counsel that only such amount could be recovered as arrears of land revenue which is either admitted by the applicant or which has been held to be due against him after some adjudication. The notice Annexure "F" under which the amount is claimed from applicant shows that the applicant had admitted before the D. C. a sum of Rs, 45,000 only as due against him whereas in the impugned notice the sum of Rs, 1,40,00 A is calimed from the applicant on the basis of the surety bond. There is nothing on record to show that any adjudication was done at any time before issuance of impugned notice holding the sum of Rs, 1,40,000 due and payable by the applicant. In these circumstances prima facie only the sum of Rs, 45,000 admitted by the applicant could be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Mr. Chohan, states that his client has already deposited a sum of Rs, 12,500 out of the admitted sum of Rs, 45,000 which is admitted by Mr. Shaikh Haider to be correct. I therefore, grant a temporary injunction in the case restraining respondents 1 to 3 from enforcing payment of the sum mentioned in the notice dated 3rd August, 1980, 'on the condition that the applicant shall deposit before the D. C. Sanghar a sum of Rs, 32,500 within one month from today. The revision application is allowed accordingly and the orders of the Courts below are set aside.
3. ' Mr. Shaikh Haider, at this stage states that since the amount claimed is Rs, 1,40,000 and is outstanding since, 1973, a direction may be given to the court below to expeditiously dispose of pending suit. I also feel that in the circumstances of the case every effort should be made to .Dispose of the suit as the dues are claimed by the Municipal Committee since 1973 and they are avoided on one pretext or the other by the applicant. I accordingly direct the Civil Judge to dispose of the suit before 31st August, 1982. In the circumstances of the case I will make no order as to costs.