AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Chandra Reddy, C.J.
Although the security bond as such cannot be enforced u/s 145 C. P. C., which seems to apply to personal liability, Section 151 CPC comes to the rescue of the decree-holder who could request the court to enforce the bond in the exercise of its inherent Jurisdiction, when the bond is executed in favour of the Court. There is abundant authority for this position. See Mente Subba Rao Vs. Penmetsa Venkataraju and Others, . This position is not contested by the respondent.
This being the correct legal position, the decree-holder could have the bond enforced by virtue of Section 151 C.P.C. To that extent the order of the lower appellate Court is varied.
As regards the grievance of the appellant that the liability of the respondent as undertaken under the security bond should be coextensive with the amount of the decree to be passed, we do not think it is well founded. There can be little doubt that the respondent had undertaken the liability only to the tune of Rs. 15000/- and the clause rendering himself liable to any amount that might be finally decreed should be construed as meaning not exceeding Rs. 15000/-. We, therefore, cannot give effect to the contention bearing on the extent of the liability of the respondent.
The order of the lower appellate Court is modified accordingly. Parties will bear their own costs throughout.