IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6281 OF 2009 Between: K.Allabaksh and another ..... PETITIONERS AND M/s Shriram Chits (P) Ltd., Secunderabad, represented by its Branch Manager/Foreman, Upstairs, SLV Complex, Anantapur District and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6281 OF 2009 O R D E R : The revision petitioners are the judgment debtors 3 and 4 in E.P.No.23 of 2008 in O.S.No.102 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur. This revision petition is filed against the order dated 23.11.2009, whereunder the Court below while allowing E.P.No.23 of 2008 against the judgment debtors 3 and 4/revision petitioners directed attachment of their salary to the extent of Rs.3,048/- and Rs.3,248/- respectively. The 1st respondent herein is the decree holder, who obtained money decree in O.S.No.102 of 2006 against the respondents 2 and 3 as well as the revision petitioners herein. Pursuant thereto, E.P.No.23 of 2008 was filed seeking attachment of salary of the judgment debtors under Order 21 Rule 48 of Civil Procedure Code. Pending the E.P., the 1st judgment debtor died and the judgment debtors 3 and 4/revision petitioners alone contested the E.P. contending that as the legal heirs of the judgment debtor 1 were receiving death benefits of judgment debtor 1, the decree holder ought to have attached the said death benefits instead of proceeding against the judgment debtors 3 and 4. The Court below by order dated 23.11.2009, while dismissing the E.P. against the judgment debtors 1 and 2, allowed the same against the judgment debtors 3 and 4/revision petitioners directing attachment of their salary as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners vehemently contended that since the revision petitioners were only guarantors for the amount borrowed by the judgment debtor 1, the Court below committed a grave error in directing attachment of their salaries. The law is well settled that the liability of the guarantor and the principal debtors is coextensive and not in alternative. In the circumstances, it is open to the decree holder to proceed against any of the judgment debtors for realisation of the decretal amount. This well settled principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in a recent decision in INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT BANK OF INDIA LIMITED v. BISWANATH JHUNJHUNWALA[1], wherein a similar contention that the liability of the guarantor was only contingent and therefore, the bank can proceed against the guarantor only, if remedies against the principal debtor failed to satisfy the dues of the decree-holder was rejected. In the light of the settled principles of law, the order under revision cannot be held to be erroneous on any ground whatsoever and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ​_____________ Date: 29.03.2010 G. ROHINI, J. Ivd [1] (2009) 9 Supreme Court Cases 478