High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Rattan Lal Gupta through his legal repre v. Punjab National Bank & Ors. - CR-5598-2004  RD-P&H 5143 (2 August 2006)
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.
Civil Revision No.5598 of 2004.
Date of decision:4.8.2006.
Rattan Lal Gupta through his legal representatives.
Punjab National Bank and others.
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N.Aggarwal.
Present: Mr.Ashish Grover Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.P.K.Dutt, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 ex parte.
On the civil suit filed by the Punjab National Bank (respondent No.1), a decree for the recovery of Rs.67,843.30P was passed in their favour by the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Bhatinda on 20.9.1988. This decree was executable against respondent Nos.2 to 6 and the petitioner who were the judgment debtors. In the execution Civil Revision No.5598 of 2004.
proceedings, the learned executing Court reached the conclusion that attachment of property of respondent Nos.5 and 6 was not possible.
However, respondent Nos.2 and 3 obtained an order from the District Judge, Bhatinda on 31.1.990 in CAD No.72 of 4.11.1988 (Annexure P- 2) that their property be attached only if the amount is not recovered from the other judgment debtors. As a result, the decree holder Bank proceeded against the property of Rattan Lal, petitioner. The said petitioner filed an application in the learned executing Court alleging that he was the guarantor only and,therefore, the amount be recovered from the principal debtors in the first instance. The said application was dismissed by the learned executing Court vide impugned order dated 26.8.2004.
Hence the present petition.
It is really a sad story that even when the respondent-Bank had obtained decree against the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 6 on 20.9.1988 but the execution proceedings are being delayed for one reason or the other. All the judgment debtors No.4 to 6 are principal debtors. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were also partners in the judgment debtor partnership firm, respondent No.4 while the present petitioner was the guarantor judgment debtor. As per law, the principal debtors and the guarantor are equally liable to pay the decretal amount.
Therefore, the impugned order dated 26.8.2004 is set aside and it is made clear that the decree holder-Bank would be entitled to execute the Civil Revision No.5598 of 2004.
decree against all the judgment debtors including the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3. The learned executing Court shall decide the execution proceedings expeditiously.
This Civil Revision is disposed of in the manner indicated above.
August 4,2006. ( S. N. Aggarwal )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.