M.C. PONNAPPA Vs. STATE BANK OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case are as follows:

(2.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the executing court has glossed over the fact that there was already an order of attachment of rents in respect of a building belonging to the second respondent herein, the principal borrower. There is no reference to the rents so attached and the same is not taken into account in seeking to recover the decretal amount by bringing the petitioner's property to sale. It is urged that though in the eye of law, the decree holder has the option of proceeding against either the principal borrower or the guarantor at its option, equity and justice would require that the bank exhaust its remedies against the principal debtor, who has, in fact, suffered an order of attachment, but the same is conveniently ignored in seeking to proceed against valuable properties of the petitioner.

(3.) However, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 would draw attention to an affidavit filed by a senior officer of the said respondent, to declare that the attachment of rents pertaining to the building belonging to the principal debtor was not capable of being enforced at all. And that no amounts could be recovered by the first respondent pursuant to the said order for attachment before judgment.