LAKHI RAM RAM DASS Vs. HAR PRASAD SYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These seven appeals by special leave arise out of the judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Punjab in Letters Patent Appeals 58-D of 1960 and 52-D of 1960, decided on March 10, 1965. Civil Appeal No. 686 of 1966 is against the judgment by which the application of the appellants (decree-holders) to withdraw and appropriate an amount of Rs. 29,000/- deposited in the executing court in Delhi by Jasbir Singh, respondent 3 herein towards the decretal amount due to them under a consent decree, dated January 30, 1951, was disallowed. The rest of the appeals are consequential upon that order inasmuch as they are against the order by which rateable distribution of the said sum of Rs. 29,000/- amongst the respondents, who are the other judgment-creditors of the said Jasbir Singh, was directed.

(2.) All the seven appeals were listed for being heard ex parte on the ground of respondents 1 to 3 not having filed their appearance and their statements of case within time. On going through the relevant papers, we, however, found that respondent 3 had filed his appearance in person in time. As regards his statement of case, we found that service on him of the appellants' statement of case was not satisfactorily proved. It is not, therefore, possible to say that he delayed in filing his statement of case. In these circumstances, we permitted him to appear through his counsel. As regards respondents 1 and 2, we did not find any reason to interfere with the order listing the appeals to be heard ex parte against them.

(3.) The appeals arise from the following facts: On January 30, 1951 the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Ahmedabad passed a decree for Rs. 80,000/- in favour of the appellants against M/s. J. S. Boota Singh and Co., Smt. Jasbir Kaur, the sole proprietor of that firm (respondents 1 and 2 herein) and Jasbir Singh, her husband (respondent 3 herein) in his capacity as a guarantor. The decree provided that Rs. 40,000/- out of the said decretal amount of Rs. 80,000/-would be paid by all the three judgment-debtors, who were made jointly and severally liable for that amount, within nine months from the data of the decree and the balance of Rupees 40,000/- within three years from the date of the decree but in respect of which respondents 1 and 2 only were made liable. Respondent 3 was thus liable in respect of the guarantee given by him in the sum of Rupees 40,000/- only along with respondents 1 and 2.