MANOHAR LAL BELI RAM Vs. HAR KISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 1-10-1956 Shri Manohar Lal the appellant herein made an application to the court of the commercial Sub Judge, First Class, Delhi for permission to sue in forma pauper is for the recovery of Rs. 8,498.00 from one Har Kishan Lal Bhalla. This application was granted on 15-6-1957 and the application itself was directed to be numbered and registered as suit When the said application was pending the appellant herein filed an application under O 39. Rr 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code for restraining the defendant in the suit from removing or alienating the goods lying in possession of the one Pearey Lal of Delhi. The said application was contested by the defendant. The court in that application which had issued the ex parte order of injunction, set aside the injunction order on furnishing a security in the suit amount by the defendant. In pursuance of the said order, Shri Shivraj, the second respondent herein made an application to the court on 11-10-1956 to stand surety for the defendant. In the application he stated that;

(2.) The statement of the surety was recorded and the said security was attested on 11-10-1956

(3.) In the suit itself the appellant herein (Plaintiff) and the 1st Respondent (defendant) entered into a compromise on 25-11-57. On the basis of the said compromise a decree was passed on that date. Under, the terms of the said compromise, the judgment-debtor, namely, the 1st respondent herein was directed to pay Rs. 8,498.00 with costs and future interest at 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the realisation of the decretal amount to the decree-holder and in case the judgment debtor paid to the decree-holder the above amount by monthly instalments of Rs 600, the first instalment being payable on the last day of December, 1957 and the subsequent instalments on the last day of every English Calendar month, then the decree was to be deemed to be satisfied. The compromise further provided that in case the judgment debtor committed default in the payment of any instalment, he was liable to pay the entire decretal amount in lump sum to the decree-holder and the decree-holder was to execute the decree.