LAWS(APH)-2008-11-26

M VENKATAEAMANAIAH Vs. MARGADARSI CHIT FUND LIMITED

Decided On November 15, 2008
M VENKATAEAMANAIAH Appellant
V/S
MARGADARSI CHIT FUND LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE subject-matter of this revision is comparatively simple, but it provides the platform to discuss certain important aspects.

(2.) ONE G. Nagasuvarnamani, 2nd respondent herein, is a prized subscriber of the 1st respondent-Chit Fund Company. Surety was obtained from as many as 6 persons viz. , the petitioner and respondents 3 to 7, for ensuring payment of instalments of the chit. On default being committed by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent filed OS No. 54 of 2002 in the Court of senior Civil Judge, Kadapa. The suit was decreed on 2. 1. 2003 for a sum of rs. 1,14,889/ -. The 1st respondent got the decree transferred to the Court of Senior civil Judge, Proddatur and filed E. P. No. 129 of 2004, under Rule 37 of Order XXI CPC, against judgment-debtors 4, 6 and 7 viz. , respondents 5, 7 and the petitioner herein, for their arrest. Respondents 5 and 7 remained ex parte. Therefore, the petitioner alone contested the matter. Through its order, dated 22. 10. 2007, the executing Court came to the conclusion that though the petitioner is possessed of sufficient means to pay the decretal amount, he did not honour the decree and accordingly, directed his arrest. This civil revision petition is filed against the order in E. P. No. 129 of 2004.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was absolutely no basis for the 1st respondent in choosing to proceed only against three judgment debtors that too selectively against the petitioner alone, leaving aside the principal debtor and the other sureties. He contends that the liability of the sureties is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor and unless steps are taken against the principal debtor also, it would become untenable for the executing Court to enforce the decree. He further contends that even otherwise, the liability of a surety is proportionate and there is no legal basis for placing the entire burden upon the petitioner alone. He has relied upon certain precedents.