ISHAR SINGH Vs. RAM SARAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short point for decision in this execution first appeal is whether a surety bend was implicitly discharged by the execution of a subsequent surety bond by another person.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that there was a partnership between two firms relating to a workshop and a foundry. There was an arbitration clause in the partnership agreement, and when differences between the partners arose, an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was made to the Court for filing the agreement and for referring the matter to arbitration. On the same day the plaintiffs made an application under Order 38, Rule 5 and Order 40. Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, for attachment before judgment of the machinery of the workshop and the foundry and for the appointment of a receiver. A conditional warrant of attachment was issued, but this was withdrawn on Ishar singh furnishing security to the extent of Rs. 1,000/ -. The security was furnished on 24-4-1951. A few days later on 3-5-1951 the plaintiffs made another application under Section 41, Schedule II of the Arbitration Act and Order 39, Rule l, Civil Procedure Code, for the sealing of the factory and appointment of a receiver. This matter was compromised of the defendants furnishing security to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- which was given by one Durga Datt. Ultimately, a decree for Rs. 20,0007- Was passed on 13-1-1954.

(3.) THE plaintiffs now sought to enforce both the security bonds, and Ishar Singh's objection was that his security stood discharged by the execution of the subsequent surety by Burga Datt. This objection was overruled by the trial Court and Ishar Singh has come up in appeal.