ORDER:

This is a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the unsuccessful decree holder/plaintiff assailing the order dated 20.03.2009 of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereby and whereunder EP.No.63 of 2007 in OS.No.4104 of 1999, filed by the petitioner-decree holder under Order XXI, Rules 22 & 48 and Section 60 CPC to order attachment of salaries of 3rd and 4th Judgment Debtors from their garnishee by issuing attachment warrant for realization of the decretal amount was dismissed.

Heard Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner-DHr-plaintiff and Sri K.V.Satya Ramchandra Rao, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-3rd JDr.

The facts leading to the filing of this Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that the petitioner herein filed OS.No.4104 of 1999 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam, for recovery of Rs.76,716/- based on the statement of account under a chit transaction against the defendants 1 to 4 among whom 1st defendant is the principal borrower-prized subscriber and the defendants 2 to 4 stood as guarantors in the event of non payment of the amount by the principal subscriber. The suit was decreed against the defendants 2 to 4 on 06.12.2000 whereas the suit against 1st defendant was abated as per orders dated 16.11.2000. Inspite of the decree suffered by defendants 2 to 4, as they failed to repay the amount the petitioner-decree holder filed EP.No.63 of 2007. The JDrs 3 & 4 filed counters mainly contending that the EP is not maintainable as the decree is not an executable against them since the first defendant is the principal borrower and the suit claim against him was dismissed and the DHr has not taken any steps to set aside the dismissal order by bringing the legal representatives of the 1st defendant on record and thereby waived the claim against the 1st defendant. The JDrs 3 & 4 are only sureties and their liability is co- extensive with that of the principal debtor. Therefore, the decree obtained against only the sureties is non-est in the eye of law. Hence, the EP is not maintainable. On merits, the executing Court having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the DHr and JDrs 3 & 4, having relied on the decision reported in Kurnool Chit Funds (P) Ltd., v. P. Narasimha & others [2008(1) ALT 795] cited on behalf of JDr.No.3, dismissed the EP.

Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner-DHr submits that the suit is filed for recovery of money against the principal debtor/prized chit subscriber along with others who stood as sureties. No doubt the suit against 1st defendant – principal debtor was abated as the petitioner failed to bring the legal representatives of the 1st defendant on record. However the suit was decreed against the other defendants 2 to 4, who are sureties, and the same has become final. As per the provisions of Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act the liability of the surety is co- extensive with that of the principal borrower and the suit is maintainable against co-defendants as per the provisions of Order XX Rule 2 CPC. Therefore, the cause of action does not come to an end because there is a liability on the part of the sureties to pay the amount. In support of his contentions, he relied on unreported decisions of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in CRP.No.50 of 2014 dated

07.02.2014 and CRP.No.2980 of 2009 dated 15.06.2010.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would contend that though the petitioner-DHr obtained a decree against the respondents-JDrs, on account of the fact that the suit against principal debtor-1st defendant stood abated as his LRs were not brought on record by the petitioner-DHr, such act of the creditor in not bringing the legal representatives of the 1st defendant on record is inconsistent with th