Revision petitioner obtained a decree for payment of money against respondents and filed E.P.No.74 of 2001 for recovery of the amount due under the said decree and realized some amounts from respondents 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 for which part satisfaction was recorded and that E.P. was closed. Thereafter, revision petitioner filed E.P.No.90 of 2004 for recovery of the balance amount due under the decree by way of attachment of the salary of the fourth respondent. Fourth respondent filed his counter contending that inasmuch as joint liability is different from joint and several liability, and since the decree holder cannot divide the amount due under a decree obtained by him against several persons and recover those portions from the judgment debtors as per his choice and since the decree holder chose to proceed against the other respondents earlier, it cannot, subsequently, seek attachment of his salary, when the other respondents against whom it chose to proceed against earlier have the capacity to discharge the amount due to it under the decree

2. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the parties. The executing Court by relying on K.S.R.MURTHY V. M/S.S.R.CHIT FUNDS PVT. LTD., & ANR(1) and G.LAXMAIAH v. STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD(2) dismissed the E.P. on the ground that the revision petitioner, who chose to proceed against the respondents 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 earlier, has to proceed against them only for recovery of balance but cannot proceed against fourth respondent half way, for realization of the decretal amount. It further observed that inasmuch as the revision petitioner failed to produce the salary certificate of the fourth respondent with full particulars, and as the salary certificate produced by the fourth respondent shows that from out of the salary and other emoluments amounting to Rs. 11,203.27ps, there are deductions to a tune of Rs.9,970.27ps, the exact amount attachable cannot be determined and dismissed the E.P. Hence, this revision.

3. The main contention of the learned counsel for revision petitioner is that inasmuch as the apex Court in STATE BANK OF INDIA v. M/S.INDEXPORT REGISTERED(3) clearly held that the decree holder has a right to proceed against any of the judgment debtors including the guarantor in the first instance, in view of Section 128 of the Contract Act, 1872 (the Act), which lays down that the liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, unless it is otherwise provided by the contract,and since the decree does not put any embargo on the right of the revision petitioner to proceed against any of the judgment debtors of his choice, the executing Court was in error in holding that the decree holder should proceed against such of those judgment debtors against whom he had earlier proceeded and cannot proceed against the fourth respondent and since the decisions relied on by the executing Court for refusing the relief sought by the decree holder is contrary to the decision of the apex Court in M/S.INDEXPORT REGISTERED case (3 supra), the order under revision is not sustainable.

4.Though served fourth respondent did not put in appearance either through counsel or in person.

5.The operative portion of the decree reads

“that the defendants do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,21,225-00 with future interest at the contractual rate of 12% p.a. on a principal sum of Rs.1,10,000-00 from the date of the suit i.e. 19-1-1999 till its realization; and ........”

So, it is clear that the decree is a joint decree and it does not place any fetter on the right of the decree holder to proceed against any of the judgment debtors of its choice for recovery of the amount due thereunder.

6. As per section 43 of the Contract Act if two or more persons make a joint promise, the promisee may, in the absence of express agreement to the contrary, compel any one or more of such joint promisors to perform the whole of the promise. The right of such joint promisor, against whom the promis