RAM KUMAR Vs. GURGAON GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition has been instituted by Ram Kumar aggrieved against the order dated 15.2.2011 passed by the District Judge, Narnaul whereby he accepted the appeal of the respondent - Gurgaon Gramin Bank filed against the order dated 6.3.2010 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mahendergarh and had held that the liability of the present petitioner - a guarantor and the principal debtor is coextensive.

(2.) Briefly stated, respondent - Bank had filed a suit for recovery under Order XXXIV read with Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of Rs.5,20,583/-. In the suit, it was pleaded by the respondent-Bank that Rohtash Kumar - defendant No.2 to the suit being Secretary of M/s Deepak Gram Udhyog Mandal - defendant No.1 had applied for grant of term loan of Rs.3.00 lacs on behalf of defendants No.1 to 8 for running a brick-kiln. It is not disputed that the respondent/plaintiff Bank had sanctioned a term loan of Rs.3.00 lacs. It is also not disputed that the petitioner/defendant No.10 to the suit is a guarantor and had mortgaged the, land with the Bank on the assurance that in case the defendant-loanee failed to re-pay the loan, they being the guarantors, would be liable for the repayment of the loan. Therefore, the present petitioner had mortgaged his land vide mortgage deed dated 14.2.1995. The suit filed by the Bank was decreed and the Court held that the defendants were severely and jointly liable to pay the loan along with interest.

(3.) Aggrieved against the same, in the execution proceedings the present petitioner had filed objections under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC raising a plea that his property was being auctioned wrongly as there was no justification to do the same. It was specifically pleaded in the objections that the property of the principal debtor was sufficient to satisfy the decree. The Executing Court vide order dated 6.3.2030 (Annexure P-4) accepted the objections and held that in case the property of the judgment debtors No.2, 7, and 11 to 17 is sufficient for satisfying the claim of the decree holder, the attachment of the property of the petitioner can be kept in abeyance. The Executing Court held as under:- ...In other words, property of respondent No. 10 being guarantor can be sold but in case mortgaged property of JDs remains insufficient, so as to satisfy the claim of DH, hence, property attached of objector Ram Kumar respondent No. 10 is set aside but Ram Kumar son of Dhani Ram shall not alienate this property till satisfaction of claim of DM against the mortgaged property of JDs.