NARAYAN SINGH Vs. CHHATARSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the judgment-debtor who stood surety for the principal debtor and it arises out of the following circumstances :

(2.) A decree from the Civil Court was obtained by the decree-holder respondent No. 1 against Jeetmal respondent No. 2 and appellant Narayan Singh who stood surety for the debt advanced by the decree-holder to the principal debtor. After the decree was put in execution, principal debtor Jeetmal made an application under section 6 of the Rajas-than Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act. 1957 (hereinafter called the Act) before the Debt Relief Court for the re-determination of his decretal amount as he was an agriculturist. Notice of that application of jeetmal was issued to the executing Court. The executing Court abated the execution proceedings against both the judgment-debtors. On appeal, the learned judge, relying on an authority of this Court in Brij Gopal v. Bhanwarlal, 1965 Raj lw 196, upheld the order of abatement against the principal debtor only and directed that execution proceedings may continue against the appellant judgment-debtor (surety) as he was not an agriculturist. It is against this judgment of the district Judge, Kota, dated 15th of February. 1971, that the present appeal has been filed, inter alia, on the ground that the liability of a surety-judgment-debtor is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor and, therefore, unless the debt is re-determined by the Debt Relief Court, the amount of the decree cannot be executed against that judgment-debtor who stood surety for the principal debtor to pay off the debt if the principal debtor failed to discharge his liability.

(3.) THE only question to be determined by this Court in this appeal is whether the liability of a surety even after the decree is passed by a competent Court is coextensive with that of the principal debtor and if any relief is granted to the principal debtor by the Debt Relief Court, can the surety also take advantage of that relief ?