A release of one of two or more joint promisors does not discharge the other joint promisors.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition for revision under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The facts briefly are that Messrs Kishan Chand Megh Raj were adjudged insolvents. The petitioner Bank prewired a claim before the Official Reciver in the sum of Rs. 720. 00 The goods, which had been pledged with it, v. ere stated to be of the value of Rs 22,000. 00. They were sold for Rs. 21. 000. 00 but the Official Receiver allowed a sum of Rs. 15, 345. 48 only. He directed that the Bank should refund the balance amount of Rs. 5. 654. 52 with interest at 31/2 percent per annum from the date of the sale of the goods. The petitioner Bank, however, claimed that a large amount was still due from "the insolvents. The question, that has now urisen, and on which the Controversy centres, relatts to a degree obtained by the petitioner Bank from the Bombay High Court. A cheque fild been drawn by Messrs Lakhmi Chand Lal Chand in favour of the insolvents in the sum of Rs. 40,000. 00. The insolvents made it over to the petilioner Bank for collection and drew against it a sum of Rs. 40,000. 00 from their cash and eredit account with the Bank. The payment of the cheque was stopped by Messrs Lakhmi Chand Lal Chand. The petitier Bank instituted a suit in the Bombay High Court to recover Rs. 40,000. 00 with interest from Messrs Lakhmi Chand Lal Chand and Messrs Kishan Chand Megh Raj. This suit was filed under the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. Messrs Kishan Chand Megh Raj did not apply for leave to defend and on 24th April 1959 a decree for a sum of Rs. 40,000. 00 together with costs and interest was passed against them in favour of the petitioner Bank. Messrs Lakhmi Chand Lal Chand sought leave and on obtaining the same contested the suit but a decree was passed against them on 23rd July, 1959 in the sum of Rs. 40,000. 00 together with costs and interest. The following portion of the decree dated 24th April, 1959 deserves to be reproduced-

" * This court doth further order that the plaintiffs do enter satisfaction upon this decree for any amount that may be realised from the first defendant in respect of the claim of the plaintiffs "herein. "it may be mentioned that Messrs Lakhmi Chand Lal Chand were the first defendant and Messrs Kishan Chand Megh Raj were the second defendant. In the second decree dated 23rd July, 1959 it was stated in almost similar terms that "full satisfaction be entered upon this decree for any amount that may be realised from the second defendant in respect of the claim of the plaintiffs herein. " The case of the petitioner Bank was that after protracted negotiations through its solicitors at Bombay, a settlement was effected with Messrs Lakhmi Chand Lal Chand and a sum of Rs. 7,500. 00 was accepted in full settlement oi the decretal claim against them and this was without prejudice to the claim against the other co-judgment- debtors, namely, Messrs Kishan Chand Megh Raj. This position was contested before the Ufficial Receiver and it was said that the settlement which was entered into with Messrs Lakhmi Chand Lal Ghand operated to wipe out the liability of Messrs Kishan Chand Megh Raj and, therefore, the petitioner Bank was not entitled to maintain any claim against the aforesaid insolvents. The Official Receiver having accepted that position, the Bank approached the Insolvency Judge under section 68 of the Provincial Insolvency Act for an adjlidication on the point. The Insolvency Judge held that the payment having been received from Messrs Lakhmi Chand Lal Chand in lull and final settlement of the decretal amount, the insolvents who were the co-judgment-debtors were absolved from all liabilities. The learned Additional District Judge, in appeal, came to the same conclusion after admitting the copy of the decree against Messrs Lakhmi Chand Lal Chand in additional evidence. In coming to that conclusion the learned Judge relied largely on a letter produced by the Manager of the Bank which h