JAMUNADAS RAVUJISAIT Vs. PUTHANMARAKAR KANDIYIL KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of South Malabar confirming an order of the District Munsif, Calicut, dismissing E.P. No. 3100 of 1926 to issue a warrant of arrest against one Baputti (the respondent) who stood as second surety for the production of certain articles attached in execution of a decree obtained in O.S. No. 417 of 1921.

(2.) The facts are fully stated in the judgment of the District Munsif. Those which are relevant to the appeal are that the decree-holder (appellant) put in E.P. No. 614 of 1922 on April 3, 1922, for attachment of (movables. They were left in the possession of this Baputti and another who executed a bond for their production. The material terms of the bond run: Agreeing that if any default is made in respect of the said properties, ourselves the properties belonging to us, and our hairs in succession, would be liable for all the loss that may be sustained thereby and for any amount that may be directed by the court.

(3.) In a bond of this sort there is no reason for the sureties making themselves responsible for the decree amount, with which they are not concerned, and they are not liable for it unless they make themselves so in the clearest terms. It cannot be contended, and In fact has not been contended before me, that the words "For any amount whatever that may be directed by the court" can make them liable for the decree amount. It is conceded that the words refer to any amount for which the court may hold them liable under the terms of the bond.