' Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was awarded a decree for maintenance against her husband Sarfraz Khan respondent No,1. The amount of decree was to be recovered as arrear of land revenue. During the execution proceedings the Tehsildar arrested Sarfraz Khan respondent No,1 and sent him to the judicial lock up for non-payment of the decretal amount. Later, Munir Ahmad respondent No,2 stood surety and the defaulter Mohammad Sarfraz Khan was released.
The surety i,e. Respondent No,2 also failed to clear the dues within the stipulated period with the result that he was arrested and sent to lock up. He thereupon got original defaulter Muhammad Sarfraz Khan arrested. The surety Munir Ahmad was released from the lock up and thereafter he made a written request to the Tehsildar to relieve him as a surety and to cancel his surety bond.
The Tehsildar conceded to this request and released him from surety bond vide his order dated 26-12-1989. The Tehsildar also forwarded the papers to ADC (G)/Collector who approved this action vide his order dated 27-12-1989. As the original order of relieving the surety was passed by the Tehsildar, the petitioner preferred an appeal against that order before the Collector which was dismissed vide his order dated 28-5-1990 on the ground that the appeal had been filed against his own order. That order was unsuccessfully challenged in appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division. Hence this revision petition under Section 164 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that without decretal amount having been recovered from respondent No,2 he could not have been released from jail as he was not surety for getting the defaulter rearrested but was surety for the realization of the amount in default, and could not have been relieved from his surety bond because under Section 4 (7) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 'defaulter' means 'a person liable for an arrears of land-revenue, who is responsible as surety for payment of the decretal amount'. It was prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and respondent No,2 may be arrested and kept in jail till the payment of the decretal amount.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent No,2 maintained that the, revision was directed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. There was no jurisdictional error or any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. It is an established law that once a surety is discharged, the decretal amount is to be paid by the judgment-debtor. The respondent No,2 had respondent No,1 (Muhammad Sarfraz) arrested and then applied for cancellation of the surety. It was prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed.
4. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to cite any law in support of his contentions and has even not correctly quoted the definition of defaulter as given in section 4 (7) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act which reads as under:- `defaulter' means a person liable for an arrear of land-revenue, and includes a person who is responsible as surety for payment of the arrear."
It is thus obvious that while quoting this definition he omitted words "and includes a person". It is an established law that once a person for whom one has stood as surety is handed over to the authorities, such surety can be discharged. Thus, there is no illegality or irregularity in the orders of the Courts below. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.