Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Mst. FARIDA NAEEM VS Respondent: BAHADUR KHANHonorable Justice Khalid Ali Z. QaziShafiq Ahmed
2009 M L D 41
2009 M L D 41
[Karachi]
Before Khalid Ali Z. Qazi, J
Mst. FARIDA NAEEM---Plaintiff
Versus
BAHADUR KHAN and 2 others---Defendants
C.M.A. No. 10228 of 2007 in Suit No.1346 of 2003, decided on 15th April, 2008.
Fatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1855)---
----S. 1---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.151---Fatal accident--Suit for recovery of amount of compensation---Attachment of vehicle---Reduction in surety amount---Application for---Defendant/the driver of the bus in question filed application for reducing the surety amount from Rs.10,00,000 to Rs.1,00,000 to enable him to get the bus released and earn his livelihood---Validity---Surety amount was quite high and defendant driver could not arrange such huge amount of surety---Since the attachment of the bus, it had not been properly maintained and the value of the bus thus had gone considerably low---All the tyres of the bus had worn out and the body and parts of the bus had become rusty and due to such attachment defendants had lost their earning and incurring loss and, damages---Amount of surety, in circumstances, was reduced to Rs.2,50,000 from Rs.10,00,000, accordingly.
None present for the Plaintiff.
Shafiq Ahmed for Applicant.
ORDER
KHALID ALI QAZI, J.---This matter has been called twice during earlier part of the day, but was kept aside due to the absence of learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is now 12.22 noon. Nobody is present on behalf of the plaintiff nor any intimation has been received.
This is an application under section 151, C.P.C. for reducing the surety amount from Rs.10,00,000 to Rs.1,00,000 to enable the defendant No.2 to get the bus released and earn his livelihood. Learned counsel submits that the Bus No.1158 allegedly involved in the road accident was attached by order, dated 21-6-2006. It was further ordered by order, dated 14-2-2006 that the bus may be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.10,00,000. Despite such order the defendant No.2 is unable to furnish surety in the sum of Rs.10,00,000. It is settled principle of law that the surety could not be withheld as a punishment, but it is for giving the equitable relief to the needy person. In the present case since 14-2-2006 the defendant No.2 could not arrange and furnish surety in the sum of Rs.10,00,000 and therefore, it appears that the surety amount is much higher than the resources of the defendant No.1. It also appears that since the attachment of the bus it has not been properly maintained and the value of the bus gone considerably low. All tyres of the bus have worn out. The body and parts of the bus caught rust and due to the attachment defendant No.2 has lost its earning and incurring loss and damages.
In the circumstances, I am inclined to reduce the surety amount in the sum of Rs.2,50,000 (Rupees Two Lacs Fifty Thousand Only). The application stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
H.B.T./F-46/K Order accordingly.