MT. JASODA Vs. KALURAM GANGRADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GRILLE , A.J.C. 1. The point for determination in this application for revision is the interpretation of a security bond. The judgment-debtor in execution proceedings had been arrested and had also actually made an application in an insolvency Court to be adjudicated an insolvency. Mr. Kaluram Gangrade, a pleader of Khandwa, then stood surety for the judgment-debtor and executed a bond dated 4th July 1929 in the following terms: I Kalooram Gangrade, Pleader of Khandwa, execute this bond of surety to this Court that the judgment-debtor having applied for insolvency in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge, Khandwa, will continue the insolvency proceedings in that Court. If he does not do so, the surety will pay Rs. 800 (eight hundred), the amount of the decree.

(2.) THE judgment-debtor was released on that day. He had already put in a petition in the insolvency Court on 27th June. On 23rd July he was adjudicated an insolvent and applied for his discharge on 17th February 1930. In prosecuting that application however he failed to pay the necessary court-fees and his application for discharge was dismissed eventually on 4th July 1930, and the adjudication order was consequently annulled. The consequence was that the decree-holder claimed that the terms of the bond had been broken and claimed to recover Rs. 800 from the surety. The Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Khandwa, held that the bond did not cover an agreement that the insolvent would apply for his discharge and dismissed the claim and discharged the surety. Against this decision the decree-holder has filed an application in revision. Ordinarily, when a judgment-debtor is arrested in execution proceedings and expresses his in-ability to pay his debts and, wishes to become an insolvent, a security bond is entered into under the provisions of Section 55(4), Civil P. C., whereby security-is furnished that the judgment-debtor will within one month apply to be declared an insolvent and that when called upon in any proceeding upon the application or upon the decree in execution of which he was arrested he will appear in Court. The exact terms of Section 55(4) could not apply in this case as such an application as contemplated therein had already been made, and a bond was executed with the intention of being analogous to the one provided for by that, section. However instead of specifying, that the judgment-debtor would appear in any proceeding when called on the wording used was that he would continue the insolvency proceeding in that Court. This the decree-holder wishes to have interpreted as prosecuting the insolvency proceedings up to the final discharge, whereas the surety contends that the reference is no more than one to proceed to adjudication.