LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has held that a decree can also be executed against a surety and added that a guarantor cannot abstain or refuse from the liabilities incurred by him through the execution of the document.
The court also observed that in terms of section 128 of the Contract Act, 1872 the liability of the guarantor is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, unless it is otherwise provided by the contract, the court added.
The court passed this order in a petition of one Gohar Rehman challenging the order of a trial court which issued warrant of possession of the petitioner’s house as guarantor.
The court observed that in terms of section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) a surety becomes liable to perform his part as undertaken in the surety in the manner provided therein.
According to the details, Sadia Bibi was given a house by her husband Raja Rizwan at the time of marriage and to this effect entry in the Nikahnama was also recorded.
However, the petitioner’s stance is that since he was neither witness nor signatory of said Nikahnama so his property cannot be attached.
The court observed that if a person, whose property has been made subject to the satisfaction of decree, is neither signatory nor party to the suit, cannot be burdened with the
outfalls of decree, however, in this case, the proposition is bit different, the court added.
The petitioner is not only father of the Raja Rizwan but he also appeared as defense witness during the trial, the court said.
The court noted that when the Raja Rizwan was sent to civil prison by the executing court on account of non-compliance of the terms of decree, the petitioner came forward for his rescue and submitted his surety bond before the executing court.
The court also noted that the petitioner while submitting surety bond, has undertaken to satisfy the decree on failure by his son to satisfy the same.
The court said that the petitioner was privy to all the proceedings and remained hand in glove with his son thus cannot wriggle out of his liability, the court added.
The court observed that exercise of constitutional jurisdiction in terms of article 199 of the Constitution is always dependent upon the circumstances that either judgment under scrutiny is the result of gross misreading and non-reading of evidence or there is some patent illegality floating on the surface of record, the court added.
The court said that no exception can be drawn to the conclusion derived by the courts below.
The court, therefore, observed that the petitioner has failed to point out any perversity or material irregularity, warranting exercise of constitutional jurisdiction by this court and dismissed the petition.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments