Once a new contract is executed, earlier guarantors are discharged of liability due to novation. The principle confirms that a surety cannot be held responsible for obligations not contracted after their agreements were revoked.

JUDGMENT

Talwant Singh, J. By this common order above-mentioned three writ petitions are disposed of. First of these writ petition bearing No. 4802/2015 has been filed by Sh. Rajan Arora, Sh. Neeru Malhotra. Petitioner No.1 claims to be ex-director of Respondent No.3 company and Petitioner No.2 is the earlier guarantor of loan/credit facilities enjoyed by Respondent No.3 company from Respondent No.1 & 2 bank. Union Bank of India is Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 3 is a company named M/s Faishan Flairs India Private Limited. Respondent No. 4 is Sh. Ram Raghubir Pandey, who is ex-director of Respondent No.3 company, Respondent No. 5 is Sh. Raman Mehta and Respondent No. 6 Smt. Geetha Mehta are the new directors of Respondent No.3 company and Respondent No. 7 Sh. Kuldeep Singh had mortgaged his property to Respondent Bank for the loan facilities extended to Respondent No.3 company. The Petitioners have challenged the order dated 25th March, 2015 passed by Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (`DRAT') in appeal No. 79/2014 by which the appeal filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Bank against the present Petitioners and Respondent No. 4 was allowed. The writ petitioner bearing No. 4803/2015 was filed by Sh. Ram Raghubir Pandey who was Respondent No. 4 in petition No. 4802/2015. He has also impleaded the Union Bank of India as Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, M/s Faishan Flairs India Private Limited as Respondent No. 3, Smt. Neeru Malhotra and Rajan Malhotra as Respondents No. 4 and 5 and Respondents No. 6, 7 and 8 are same i.e. Sh. Raman Mehta, Smt. Geetha Mehta and Sh. Kuldeep Singh. The impugned order is the same i.e. order dated 25th March, 2015 passed by DRAT in appeal No. 79/2015 against the Petitioner Ram Raghubir Pandey and Respondent No. 4 and 5 Neeru Malhotra and Rajan Malhotra. Sh. Ram Raghubir Pandey has died and has been substituted by his legal heirs.

2. The writ petition No. 11928/2015 was filed by Union Bank of India wherein Sh. Rajan Malhotra, Smt. Neeru Malhotra and Ram Raghubir Pandey (since deceased) have been impleaded as Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively and the company M/s Faishan Flairs India Pvt. Ltd. is Respondent No.4. Sh. Raman Mehta, Smt. Geetha Mehta and Sh. Kuldeep Singh have been impleaded as Respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7. The Bank has also challenged the same order passed by DRAT as the bank is aggrieved from that portion of the order where DRAT had held that bank had failed to prove that Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had executed the deeds of guarantee dated 22nd July, 1995. For the sake of convenience we will be referring to the parties and pleadings in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4802/2015 as all the three petitions have emanated from the same order dated 25th March, 2015 and the parties as well as the facts are common although the relief claimed by Union Bank of India is different from the relief claimed by the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4802/2005 and 4803/2015.

3. The relevant portion of the impugned order of DRAT is as under:

"27. Without further multiplying the judgments which may be relevant in this regard, the discussion can be cut short as the issue apparently has now been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HB Basavaraj. (Dead) by LRs. & Anr. Vs. Canara Bank & Ors., 2010(1) KarLJ 588. This issue on the basis of this judgment was considered by this Tribunal while deciding Appeal No.320/14 titled Sudhir Kumar Khuarana vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors., decided on 27.10.2014. This Tribunal considered the question on, the basis of various judgments to hold as under:

....The Cour