L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) DEBTOR in EP No. 4 of 2003 in OS No. 12 of 2000 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, filed this CRP. , assailing the order dated 17-9-2004, passed by the Executing Court.

( 2 ) THE 2nd respondent herein was advanced some amount by the State Bank of Hyderabad, the 1st respondent. The petitioner offered himself as a surety, for repayment of the amount Since the 2nd respondent committed default in repayment of the loan, the 1st respondent filed OS no. 12 of 2000. The suit was decreed on 29-12-2000 for a sum of Rs. 55,394/ -. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent were held jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount The decree became final.

( 3 ) THE 1st respondent filed EP No. 30 of 2001 for execution of the decree. The 2nd respondent offered to pay the decretal amount, in installments at the rate of rs. 1,000/- per month. The 1st respondent agreed for the same, and the EP was closed. Alleging that the 2nd respondent committed, default in payment of the installments, the 1st respondent filed EP No. 4 of 2003 and sought to proceed against the petitioner herein.

( 4 ) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the 1st respondent had already taken out execution of the 2nd respondent, the principal-debtor, and once ep No. 30 of 2001 was closed, by directing a particular arrangement, it was not open to the 1st respondent to proceed against him. The 2nd respondent also expressed his willingness to pay the balance. The Execution court did not agree with the contention of the petitioner, and through the order under revision ordered that the salary of the petitioner be attached, following the procedure under Section 60 of CPC.

( 5 ) SMT. G. Jaya Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent, had already taken out execution against the 2nd respondent, and the petitioner by filling EP No. 30 of 2001 and the 2nd respondent has undertaken to pay the entire amount, in installments. She contends that once the 1st respondent agreed to receive the amount, in installments, and the EP was closed with the consent of the parties, it is not open to them to take any other steps, except to enforce the directions issued in EP No. 30 of 2001.

( 6 ) SRI Simhadri, learned Standing counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that, it is open to the holder in a money suit to enforce the decree against the principal-debtor, or the surety, and perforce, partly against each of them. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme court in State Bank of India v. M/s indexport Registered, (1992) 3 SCC 159, learned Counsel contends that the liberty of the 1st respondent to proceed against the petitioner herein cannot be scuttled. He also submits that the necessity to proceed against the petitioner arose, on account of the default committed by the 2nd respondent, and that no interference is warranted with the order under revision.

( 7 ) THE 1st respondent obtained a decree for a sum of Rs. 55,394/- against the 2nd respondent and the petitioner herein. It is not in dispute that the petitioner offered himself as a surety, for repayment of the amount borrowed by the 2nd respondent. There exists hardly any doubt, as to the right and entitlement of a decree-holder, in a money suit, to proceed against the principal-debtor, or the surety. In State Bank of India v, M/s. Indexport Registered (supra), the Supreme Court held as under:"the decree does not put any fetter on the right of the decree-holder to execute it against any party, whether as a money decree or as a mortgage decree. The execution of the money decree is not made dependent on first applying for execution of the mortgage decree. The choice is left entirely with the decree-holder". It was further held that the decree-holder is not under obligation to proceed against the property alone, even where the decree is a composite one, viz. , for recovery of amount and sale of mortgaged property.

( 8 ) IN the ins

Click Here to Read the rest of this document