LAKSHMAN SADASHIV Vs. GOPAL APPAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an application for the execution of a decree against a surety under Section 258 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) In order to accede to the argument advanced before us by the respondents in support of the decree passed in their favour in the lower Court we must read in Section 253 the word " before" as being equivalent to "before or after."

(3.) There are decisions of this Court, and in particular I refer to that in Venkapa, Naik v. Baslingapa (1887) I.L.R. 2 Bom.411, where it has been determined that certain words in that section are superfluous. But I do not feel at liberty to introduce into the section the words necessary for the success of the respondents argument. The case of Venkapa Naik v. Baslingapa (1887) I.L.R. 2 Bom. 411, has been relied on both before us and in the lower Court. It was in effect there said that the words " in an original suit" were superfluous. How far that opinion was justified I need not discuss, but it is erroneous to suppose that there is any warrant in that decision for treating as superfluous not only the words " in an original suit ", but also the words " before the passing of the decree". These last words are kept intact by that decision.