' The petitioner Salah-ud-Din provided Shabbir Ahmad respondent No. 2 as surety for payment of Rs.60,000 as the amount of rent realized by him for an erstwhile evacuee property and a bond was accordingly furnished in pursuance of the order passed by the High Court on 7-7-1976 in Writ Petition No. 711/R of 1975. After the dismissal of the writ petition on 15-11-1981, execution proceedings were launched on 13-12-1981 by Maratab Ali respondent for recovery of tke amount from the petitioner alongwith his surety. They raised object therein to the effect that the execution could not lie without the Civl Court having passed a decree with regard to the amount recoverabe. Learned Executing Judge repelled the objection by his order, dated 8-1-1985 with the observation that the undertaking given in pursuance of the order of the High Court was entitled to be put to affect.
2. Salah-ud-[An, who was the principal for the purpose of surety furnished by ShabLir Ahmad, has come up to this Court for revision of the said order and Shabbir Ahmad has been impleaded therein as a respondent alongwith Maratab Ali.
3. It is contended that the surety-bond is not enforceable without a decree for any specified amount passed in favour of Maratab Ali who is not entitled to upright enforce the surety-bond in consequence merely of the dismissal of the writ petition wherein undertaking had been given. This contention has no merit and whereas section 145 of the C.P.C. Clearly provides for enforcement of surety bond against the surety, even the petitioner cannot evade his liability incurred on the basis of the interim order passed in the writ petition and apart from the principle of estoppel standing in the way of the petitioner being provided any relief in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction of revision to have his commitment made in this Court rendered nugatory, there is the precedent Hidayat Ali v. Sakina Begum and others PLD 1955 Lah. 388 wherein late justice Kaikaus (as he then was) has considered the question from different angles and come to the conclusion that such an undertaking is enf9rceable by means of an execution petition against both the principal and surety. To the same effect also is Bashir Ahmad v. Mst. Jahan Ara Begum 1979 CLC 439. In this view, the order, dated 8-1-1985, passed by the learned Civil Judge is unexceptionable.
4. This Civil Revision has no force and the same is, therefore, dismissed with costs.