The liability of sureties remains despite the dismissal of a suit against the principal borrower if the creditor's rights are intact.

1. This second appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 638 of 1989 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Kurnool.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 13,935/- with interest and costs against the defendants 1 to 4. The amount relates to a chit transaction. The 1st defendant joined as a member of the chit group of Rs. 40,000/- agreeing to subscribe Rs. 1,000/- per month for a period of 40 months and, thus, he executed an agreement on 23-12-1985. D1 became the successful bidder in the 19th auction held on 27-9-1987 agreeing to forego a sum of Rs. 7,420/-. The defendants 2 and 3 and V. Lakshman Raju stood as sureties for payment of future installments by D1. The said Lakshman Raju died on 17-4-1988 leaving D3 and D4 as his legal representatives of his estate in their hands. The 1st defendant received a chit amount of Rs. 32,580/- on27-10-1987 from the plaintiff and he was due to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as on the date of the chit amount. The defendants 1 to 3 and the deceased. V. Lakshman Raju executed a promissory note on 27-10-1988 agreeing to repay the amount with joint and several liability with interest at 12% per annum. The defendants became due to pay a sum of Rs. 11,500/- with interest thereon. On 12-12-1987, a sum of Rs. 857-75 ps was endorsed on the back of the suit promissory note, which was signed by the borrower and the sureties as they failed to pay the amount. The suit against the 1st defendant was dismissed for default on 31-7-1990. A petition covered by IA No. 210 of 1992 for condoning the delay in filing the application to set aside the dismissal order against the 1st defendant was filed, but the said application was dismissed by the Court on merits on 12-12-1994. The plaintiff did not prefer any revision against the default order. The suit against D3 was also dismissed on 11-6-1990 but on the application of the plaintiff, the suit was restored against D3 and he contested the matter, D2 and D4 remained ex parte. It was the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit, D1 died and as he has no properties, he did not take steps to bring the legal representatives of the 1st defendant on record. But the Court below observed that the plaintiff has not placed any record or document before the Court to prove that D1 has no properties and when actually D1 died, PW 1 did not whisper any word with regard to the death of D1. Though, D2 and D3 and the deceased surety V. Lakshman Raju executed suit promissory note along with D1, they are not liable to discharge the suit amount jointly or severally in the absence of principal borrower on record. Though the plaintiff is at liberty to recover the amount from either of the borrower under Ex. A3, but he must sue against the borrower and the sureties as the suit against D1 is not in existence, the sureties cannot be made liable to pay the suit debt with joint or several liability. The suit is bad for non - joinder of parities. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed against all the defendants. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred A.S. No. 12 of 1996 on the file of the District Judge, Kurnool and the appeal was allowed but without costs by setting aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court making the defendants 2 to 4 liable to pay the amount. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred the present appeal against the denial of the costs by the appellate Court and the defendants 2 to 4 preferred cross objections as both the appeal and the cross - objections arose out of the same judgment. Both the matters are clubbed and this order has been