The All India Reporter 1946 - Journal Section Containing Original Articles Reviews of Books etc. Citation: (A.I.R. (33) 1946 Journal

Refused to follow the view of Kendall J. and held that the appellate Court was entitled to hear the respondent as re- gards the merits of the appeal even apart from the question of the pauperism of the appellant after he has appeared in response to a notice. [...] We need not resort to the provisions of the Contract Act governing the liability of a surety in general because whatever those provisions may be they are modified in the case of a surety to a party to a suit or a judgment-debtor by the provisions of S. 145 Civil P. C. and it is to that section we should look for a proper understanding of the true nature of the liability of a surety to a judg- ment [...] Though the section puts him in the position of the judgment-debtor his liability is not the same as that of the judg- ment-debtor because firstly the liability of the surety arises under the bond and not"8 Journal LIABILITY OF SURETY FOR A JUDGMENT-DEBT LIMITATION A. I. R. under the decree or order made against the judgment-debtor. [...] In view of the fact that in the kind of cases contemplated by the main pro position of the Full Bench the issues involved are ex hypothesi common the decrees passed by the lower Court must run on parallel lines and a successful appeal against one of the decrees must inevitably result in the coming into existence of two inconsistent decrees. [...] The provisions as to the recruitment to the judiciary and the proposal to vest in the Courts jurisdiction to pronounce on the constitutionality of the laws and decisions of the Legislature are also worthy of note.