The central legal point established in the judgment is that the liability of the guarantor and the principal debtor is coextensive, and the recovery can be made from the guarantor without first proceeding against the principal debtor, in accordance with the binding nature of the agreement.

Judgment and Order :

1. Heard Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Tripura Gramin Bank as well as Mr. D. R. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. H. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2-3.

2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC from the judgment dated 30.08.2013 delivered in Title Appeal No. 04 of 2011 by the Addl. District Judge, No. 3, West Tripura, Agartala. By the order dated 30.04.2014 the following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court for hearing of this appeal:

(i) Whether the bank can proceed against the guarantor first, without proceeding against the loanee towards realization of money extended as loan?

(ii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court suffers from perversity?

Even though leave has been given to the appellants, but Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has categorically submitted that he will not raise any further substantial question of law.

3. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of reversal. The suit was instituted by the respondent No.1 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Bishalgarh, West Tripura being T.S. 27 of 2008 for declaration and permanent injunction. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 being an Assistant Teacher in a Government School stood guarantor by executing the letter of guarantee to the effect that if the respondent No. 2 fails or defaults in re-payment of the loan that he has taken from Tripura Gramin Bank, the appellant herein, for business of sweet-meat shop, he would take the burden of re-payment.

4. A loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- was extended to the respondent No. 2. It appears from the records that he had defaulted in the re-payment. It was agreed that the entire loan would be repaid in 16 instalments in the manner as provided in the agreement. Even the bank raised demand for the payment of the outstanding but the respondent No. 2 did not re-pay, rather he had prayed for extension of period of repayment. Even at that time, the guarantor signed the revival letter dated 01.11.2007 and the letter of confirmation dated 12.11.2007.

5. The suit proceeded ex-parte against the defendant No. 1, the respondent No. 2 herein and the defendant No. 2, the respondent No. 3 herein. Thus, the loanee did not contest the suit. The trial Court after recording the evidence both oral and documentary returned the findings on the issues as framed including those which are as under:

(ii) Whether the plaintiff stood as a guarantor in the loan account of defendant No. 1 as claimed by the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 by showing the letter of guarantee etc?

(iii) Whether defendants No. 2 and 3 are entitled to recover the amount of loan from the S/B account No. E/S. 146 of the plaintiff in Bikramnagar Branch of Tripura Gramin Bank to adjust in the loan account of defendant No. 1?

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the amount deducted from his S/B account by the defendants No. 2 and 3 with interest by remitting the same in the S/B account of the plaintiff?

(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get interest at the rate of 12% per annum and compensate recovery of the amount so far had been adjusted in the loan account of defendant No. 1?

6. The trial court returned the finding that the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief and in view of that the suit was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC against the judgment dated 13.09.2010 delivered in T.S. 27 of 2008 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bishalgarh, West Tripura.

7. The said appeal being T.A. No. 04 of 2011 was transferred to the Court of the Addl. District Judge, Court No. 3, West Tripura, Agartala and by the impugned judgment dated 30.08.2013 the said appeal has been allowed by reversing the said finding of the trial court, fundamentally holding that the decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondentbank is not applicable in the context of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document