JAICHAND T GANGWAL Vs. SHRIRAM CHITS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent filed O.S. No. 906 of 2000 in the Court of the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against respondents 1 to 4 and the petitioner herein for recovery of amount covered by a chit transaction. While the 2nd respondent is the prized subscriber, the petitioner (4th defendant) and respondents 3 to 5 are sureties. The suit was decreed on 06.08.2002. After the decree became final, the 1st respondent initially filed E.P. No. 131 of 2002, which is said to have been dismissed for default after the judgment debtors entered appearance and filed counter. Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed E.P. No. 95 of 2009 for grant of attachment against the immovable properties of the petitioner herein, i.e. 4th judgment debtor. The petitioner filed E.A. No. 83 of 2010 under Section 47 C.P.C. with a prayer to decide as to whether it was competent for the 1st respondent to claim relief against the petitioner alone, without claiming any relief against the principal debtor and other judgment debtors. The application was opposed by the 1st respondent. The Executing Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 08.11.2010. Hence, this revision.

(2.) Smt. Ch. Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the decree obtained by the 1st respondent is, no doubt, joint and several in nature, but in the context of execution, the decree holder is required to proceed against all the judgment debtors. She contends that the occasion for the 1st respondent to proceed against the sureties would arise, if only, steps taken by it against the 2nd respondent did not fructify. Learned counsel submits that substantial amount has been recovered from the 2nd respondent and unless the relief is claimed against all, the Court would not be able to determine the dispute, effectively. She contends that the view taken by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law.

(3.) Sri K. Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that though the E.P. filed on earlier occasion was dismissed for default, the 1st respondent is entitled in law, to maintain another E.P. He submits that once the decree is joint and several in nature, the 1st respondent has every right to proceed against any of the judgment debtors. He contends that the trial Court has taken the correct view of the matter.