JUDGMENT : Shaffique, J. Original petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 and seeking for a declaration that the Family Court Nedumangad has no jurisdiction to execute the decree in OP No.1005/ 2003 against the petitioner. The short facts involved would indicate that the respondent herein obtained a decree in OP No.1005/2003. Petitioner herein is the 4th judgment debtor. EP No. 52/2007 came to be filed before the Family Court. The petitioner entered appearance and filed EA 124/2008 contending that decree is not executable against him as there was no decree against him and he was not a party in OP No.1005/2003. Earlier the decree holder filed EP No. 174/2003 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram which was renumbered as EP No. 103/2005 and thereafter transferred to the Family Court, Nedumangad. It is stated that during the pendency of OP No. 1005/2003, an arrest warrant was issued against the respondent's husband. The petitioner being a relative executed a bond before the Family Court on 7/7/2003 for Rs. 1 lakh with 2 solvent sureties for releasing her husband. Ext.P1 is the affidavit executed by the petitioner. On 10/7/2003, the petitioner appeared along with the other sureties with tax receipts and the Family Court directed furnishing of proper security as envisaged under the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the petitioner, he did not furnish any security in the prescribed format. The respondent's husband thereafter appeared on several days and the Family Court granted him time to furnish proper security for the claim in the original petition. Later, the respondent's husband was declared ex parte and a decree was passed. While the execution petition was pending an application was filed to implaed the petitioner herein as the 4th judgment debtor which was dismissed as not pressed. Thereafter EP No.52/2007 was filed before the Family Court against the petitioner and others in order to execute the decree. Ext.P4 is the Execution Petition. 2. It is in the said background the petitioner after having entered appearance filed an application seeking to dismiss the execution petition filed against him. The Family Court passed Ext.P7 order observing that the petitioner being a surety, he is liable to pay the amount covered by the decree and his objections were overruled and the decree holder was permitted to take steps for realising the amount from the petitioner. The Family Court passed Ext.P7 order observing that the petitioner being a surety, he is liable to pay the amount covered by the decree and his objections were overruled and the decree holder was permitted to take steps for realising the amount from the petitioner. It is challenging the above order dated 19/9/2015 in EA 124/2008, that this original petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is neither a judgment debtor nor a surety to the transaction. He had only given a bond for an amount of Rs. 1 lakh and that too for the purpose of releasing the respondent's husband when he was arrested before judgment. Thereafter, respondent's husband entered appearance and ultimately he was declared ex parte and a decree had been passed. There is no decree against the petitioner and therefore merely for the reason that he had given a bond for releasing her husband at the time when he was arrested, does not mean that he becomes liable for the entire decree debt. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that while executing the bond, the petitioner had undertaken to settle the entire liability as well and therefore, he is liable to settle the liability of the judgment debtor. Learned counsel therefore supported the stand taken by the Family Court in this matter. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner herein was not a party to OP No.1005/2003 and no decree had been passed against him. If at all there was violation of a bond, appropriate action should have been taken to forfeit the bond. Such a procedure has not been adopted by the Family Court. Even according to the learned counsel for petitioner, the respondent's husband had appeared before the Family Court on several occasions and later he remained ex parte. Therefore, unless there is a specific obligation created on the part of the petitioner becoming a surety to the possible decree amount, the decree cannot be executed against him. The execution court proceeded on the basis that the petitioner is a surety and therefore under Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the liability can be enforced against him. The Family Court has also relied upon various judgments to substantiate the aforesaid fact. There cannot be any quarrel about the above position. 6. The execution court proceeded on the basis that the petitioner is a surety and therefore under Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the liability can be enforced against him. The Family Court has also relied upon various judgments to substantiate the aforesaid fact. There cannot be any quarrel about the above position. 6. The question is whether the petitioner was a surety to the amount claimed by the respondent. The B Diary proceedings in OP No. 1005/03 would show that on 1/7/2003 warrant was ordered against the respondent therein and it was posted on 7/7/2003 (wrongly recorded as 21/7/2003). On 7/7/2003, the counter petitioner is arrested and produced and thereafter released on bond of Rs. 1 lakh for appearance on 10/7/2003. 7. On 10/7/2003, counter petitioner was present and he was directed to furnish security as contemplated under the Civil Rules of Practice and he was directed to be present on the next posting date. On 14/7/2003, he again appeared and he was directed to furnish security within 7 days. On 21/7/2003, counter petitioner was not present. He was declared ex parte. Case was taken up for ex parte evidence. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he had only given a bond. A perusal of the bond would show that he has given a bond for Rs.1 lakh and if he fails to produce the counter petitioner, the amount could be forfeited by the court. He has also given an affidavit which is placed for reference wherein he had only offered to be a surety for the counter petitioner. It is stated that the counter petitioner has no property and that the petitioner is willing to be a surety and he is ready to produce the tax receipt and the request made is that he is a surety for the purpose of producing the counter petitioner before court and if he does not appear, the property covered by the tax receipt could be proceeded further. Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:- "145. Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:- "145. Enforcement of Liability of surety.- Where any person has furnished security or given a guarantee- (a) for the performance of any decree or any part thereof, or (b) for the restitution of any property taken in execution of a decree, or (c) for the payment of any money, or for the fulfillment of any condition imposed on any person, under an order of the Court in any suit or in any proceeding consequent thereon, the decree or order may be executed in the manner herein provided for the execution of decrees, namely:- (i) if he has rendered himself personally liable, against him to that extent. (ii) if he has furnished any property as security, by sale of such property to the extent of the security; (iii) if the case falls both under clauses (i) and (ii), then to extent specified in those clauses. and such person shall be deemed to be a party within the meaning of section 47: Provided that such notice as the Court in each case thinks sufficient has been given to the surety." 8. The learned counsel for the respondent also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Varghese v. Bhanuvikraman Unnithan ( 2007 (2) KLT 595 ) to contend that where a third party has executed a surety bond, he shall be deemed to be a party within the meaning of Section 47 which indicates that a separate suit is not necessary for enforcing the bond. 9. First of all it is relevant to consider whether section 145 applies to the fact situation. The security to be furnished or the guarantee to be given in terms of section 145 is for the performance of any decree or part thereof for restitution of any property taken in execution of a decree or for payment of any money or for the fulfillment of the condition imposed on any person under an order of the court in any suit or proceeding. We do not think that any of the aforesaid situations had arisen in the case. Here is an instance where an interlocutory application was filed to arrest the counter petitioner before judgment. He was arrested and produced. He was released on condition that the petitioner had given a bond for Rs.1 lakh. We do not think that any of the aforesaid situations had arisen in the case. Here is an instance where an interlocutory application was filed to arrest the counter petitioner before judgment. He was arrested and produced. He was released on condition that the petitioner had given a bond for Rs.1 lakh. If the counter petitioner does not appear, it shall be open for the court to forfeit Rs. 1 lakh. But no such orders had been passed during the pendency of the original petition. Even in execution petition, the decree holder had no case that the judgment debtor/counter petitioner is not available. Only if he fails to appear, on a notice being issued to him for personal appearance or he could not be apprehended, question of forfeiting the bond arises. When a bond is executed only for appearance of a party, none of clauses (a), (b) or (c) applies. If the aforesaid clauses have no application, he cannot be treated as a surety coming within the meaning of Section 145 and therefore, he cannot be proceeded with. Hence, we are of the view that the Family Court committed serious error by proceeding on the basis that the petitioner is a surety. It seems that property of the petitioner was sold in court auction for Rs.1,11,000/-. We do not want to express any opinion in regard to the same. At any rate, he cannot be mulcted with any liability as a judgment debtor. The Family Court referred to the affidavit filed by the petitioner. The affidavit is only for the purpose of treating the property covered by the tax receipt as security for the bond amount undertaken by him. It was not intended to be a security for the decree to be passed, in which event the Court would have passed an order in that regard. In the result, we are satisfied that the Family Court has completely erred in recovering the amount from the petitioner herein. Accordingly, this original petition is allowed as under:- (i) Ext.P7 order dated 19/9/2015 is set aside. (ii) It is made clear that the petitioner is not liable for the decree amount and he is not a surety to satisfy the decree debt.