' This execution application had been filed by the decree-holder for execution of the ex parte decree passed by this Court on 19-3-1979. The judgment-debtors on 30-10-1980 filed an application under Order IX, rule 13, read with section 151, C.P.C. in the suit for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree. This application was numbered as C.M.A. No.4835/80 and alongwith this application an application C.M.A. No.4834/80 was also filed by the judgment-debtors for stay of Execution Application No.106/80 (the present execution application) till the disposal of the application filed by the judgment-debtors for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree. By consent order dated 8-11-1980, C.M.A. 'No.4834/80 was disposed of in the following terms:- "By consent I grant C.M.A. No.4834/80 on the condition that the execution application is stayed subject to furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Nazir of the Court in the sum of Rs.66,000 (Rupees sixty thousand only) within two weeks from today. In case no security is furnished within this time stay granted shall stand vacated."
' In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 8-11-1980, the security was furnished by the applicant Ghulam Rasool in the sum of Rs.66,000 vide Bond No.8971, dated 27-11-1980. The main application under Order IX, rule 13, read with section 151, C.P.C. (C.M.A No.4835/80) came to be dismissed by this Court on 27-4-1981. In the present execution application, on the application of the decree-holder, action is being taken against the applicant Ghulam Rasool on the basis of the security given by him.
' Miscellaneous No.446/84 is an application under section 151, C.P.C. filed by the applicant Ghulam Rasool, who has furnished security on behalf of the judgment-debtors as aforesaid, praying that all proceed ings taken and orders passed in the present execution proceedings against him may be vacated and further proceedings against him may also be dropped. C.M.A. No.784/84 is another application filed by the applicant that till the disposal of Micellaneous No. 446/34, further proceedings in this execution application against the applicant may be stayed. I have heard Mr.Mohammad Ali Shaikh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Ahmad Saeed Qureshi, learned counsel for the decree-holder.
2. Two contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. Firstly, it has been contended that under Order IX, rule 13, C.P.C. the Court could not pass the orders directing the judgment-debtors to furnish security for stay of the execution application against the judgment- debtors. Secondly, it has been contended that in any case upon the dismissal of the application of the judgment-debtors for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree by order, dated 27-4- 1981, the security furnished by the applicant automatically stood discharged and thereafter the applicant was under no legal obligation to secure the decretal amount. Both the contentions are without any substance. lf a decree is passed ex parte and the defehdant makes a application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree als seeking a stay of the execution application, the Court is competent, while granting stay of the execution application, to put the judgment-debtor on terms. Nothing in Order IX, rule 13, C.P.C. places any embargo on the powers of the Court to put the judgment-debtor on terms while granting stay of the execution application. Additionally, it, may be observed, that the order, dated 8-11-1980 was passed by consent.The order, dated 8-11- 1980 disposing of the C.M.A. No.4834/80 was passed with competence and jurisdiction by this Court.
3. As regards the other contention that the security furnished by the applicant did not remain in force after the dismissal of the application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree, it may be observed that the contention ex facie is misconceived. The judgment-debtors' had sought stay of the execution application and by consent the order, dated 8-11-1980 was passed staying the execution on the judgment-debtor's furnishing security in the sum of Rs.66,000 to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. By this order, the decree-holder was restrained from proceeding with the execution application. The purpose of putting the judgment- debtors on terms was that as the decree-holder was restrained from proceeding with the execution application, in case the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was dismissed, the decree-holder could proceed against the security also. If the applica tion for setting aside the decree had been allowed, the security would have stood discharged, as then there would be no decree. If the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is accepted the result would be absurd and that is that the security would be of no purpose or effect, as in both eventualities i.e. whether the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was granted or not, no action would be possible against the security.
' Miscellaneous No.446/84 is accordingly dismissed. As a result, C.M.A. No.784/84 has become infructuous and the same is also dismissed.