1966 (2) TMI 104 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Enforcement of surety bond against the sureties.
2. Abatement of appeal due to failure to bring legal representatives on record.
3. Interpretation of rules regarding abatement of appeals in execution proceedings.

Analysis:

1. The case involved the enforcement of a surety bond against the sureties who had mortgaged properties as security. The first respondent sought to execute a decree against the sureties after the second respondent was ordered to be wound up. The sureties objected to the execution, claiming that the surety bond was unenforceable due to lack of registration and that the first respondent's actions had discharged them from liability. The lower courts rejected these objections, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court by three of the sureties.

2. The abatement of the appeal was a crucial issue in this case. One of the appellants, Basant Lal, passed away before his legal representatives were brought on record. The failure to implead the legal representatives led to the abatement of Basant Lal's appeal. The abatement raised concerns about the impact on the overall appeal and the conflicting decisions between the High Court and the Supreme Court regarding the enforceability of the surety bond.

3. The interpretation of rules regarding abatement of appeals in execution proceedings was also a point of contention. The appellants argued that the rules governing abatement in execution proceedings did not apply to appeals in such proceedings. However, the Supreme Court clarified that appeals to the Court are governed by the rules contained in the Supreme Court Rules, which require the timely impleadment of legal representatives. The Court emphasized that the liability of the sureties was joint and several, and the failure to bring all legal representatives on record within the specified time resulted in the abatement of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal due to the abatement caused by the failure to bring Basant Lal's legal representatives on record within the prescribed time. The Court highlighted the importance of timely impleadment of legal representatives in appeals to ensure proper adjudication of the matter.