RAJAMMA Vs. C PUTTACHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter was heard by me on 12-4-2005. It was argued by Sri Purushothama Rao that if the suit has abated as against the principal debtor, the suit gets abated in its totality. In support of his argument, he has cited before me a reported decision of the Supreme Court reported in T. Raju Setty v Bank of Baroda, Bangalore.

(2.) ON the other side, the Counsel for the respondent, Sri G. M. Anand supported the impugned judgment. He had also cited before me a reported decision of the Supreme Court in Mahabir Prasad v Jage Ram and Others. I have gone through both the decisions cited by the contending counsel. Having gone through the decisions cited, I fee that the decision cited by Sri Rao is on the facts and circumstances of this case. In para 28 of the judgment, the Supreme Court had observed as hereunder: "28. A decision of a Division Bench of Calcutta in United Bank of india v Modern Stores (India) Limited and Others, AIR 1988 Cal. 18 (DB), was also pressed into service by the learned Counsel for the Bank. In that case a decision of the Supreme Court in Sri chand and Others v M/s. Jagadsh Pershad Kishan Chand and others, AIR 1966 SC 1427 was distinguished. While referring to sri Chand's case, it has been held as follows (para 24 ).-

(3.) I did not entertain the decision cited by Sri Anand for the simple reason that, that is in an appeal, whereas in the instant case, it was a suit and decree as against a surety defendant.