IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1393 of 2005. Keshav Kumar Gautam S/O Shri Chandrapal Gautam, Resident of village Hariawala, Post Office Kunda, Tehsil Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 3. Ranvir Singh, S/O Late Shri Jagannath Sharma, R/O Mohalla Subhash Nagar, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 4. Vicghitra Singh, 5. Vikram Singh, 6. Bhupendra Singh, all Sons of Amrik Singh, R/O village Kuankhera, P.O. Bartia pur, Distt. Bijnore U.P. …Respondents. . Ms. Geeta Parihar, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. I.S.Mehra, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. Date December 03, 2009. P.C.: Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard Ms. Geeta Parihar, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri I.S.Mehra, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. By means of this writ petitioner, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and decree dated 29-5-2004 (Annexure No. 3 to the petition) passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kashipur, district Udham Singh Nagar in Original Suit No. 113 of 2001 Ranvir Singh Vs. Vichitra Singh and others and the judgment and decree dated 29-9-2005 (Annexure No. 4 to the petition) passed by the Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court, Kashipur, district Udham Singh Nagar in Civil Appeal No. 54 of 2004 Vichitra Singh and others Vs. Ranvir Singh, so far as it relates to the petitioner. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the respondent no. 3 Ranvir Singh was Manager of the 2 bank as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. According to the petitioner on 28-7-2000, the respondent no. 3 sanctioned a loan of Rs. 20,000/- in favour of Vichitra Singh, respondent no.4 for purchase of a motor cycle. In the said loan, one Vikram Singh and Bhupendra Singh, respondent no. 5 and 6 stood guarantors and they put their signatures on the certificate of guarantors and executed it the same day. Borrower Vichitra Singh, who had taken the loan of Rs. 20,000/- from the bank detailed in paragraph no. 2 of the petition did not repay the loan amount, since the bank was not recognized with the Reserve Bank of India for doing the business. Hence the Civil Suit No.113 of 2001 was filed by respondent no.3-plaintiff in individual capacity against Vichitra Singh, Vikram Singh, Bhupendra Singh and Keshave Kumar Gautam (petitioner in this petition). Ultimately, the said suit was decreed against the respondent nos. 3 to 6 by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 29-5-2004. An appeal was preferred by the defendant-respondent nos. 3 to 6 which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 54 of 2004, which was ultimately decided by the Additional District Judge/ F.T.C. Kashipur by his judgment and decree dated 29-9-2005 dismissing the appeal. Aggrieved by both the judgment and decree, this writ petition has been preferred since as per Section 102 of the C.P.C., no second appeal is permissible the valuation of the suit being under Rs. 25,000/-, i.e.Rs. 23,512/-. This fact is not disputed that the petitioner is only a recommending authority for grant of loan in favour of the respondent no.4 Vichitra Singh. The loan was admittedly sanctioned by the respondent no.3 Ranvir Singh. The only question before this Court in writ jurisdiction to be examined is whether the findings of the trial court as well as the appellate court are perverse as against the petitioner. 3 It is well settled that the liability to pay the loan rests upon the borrower and guarantors and they are jointly and severally liable to pay the same and the loan amount can only be realized from the borrower and the guarantors. The learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court has apparently committed a manifest error of law in not considering this aspect that the petitioner, who is defendant no. 4, was neither a borrower nor a guarantor to the loan and no such issue was framed by the trial court whether the defendant no. 4 is also liable to pay the loan amount. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is obvious that both the courts below lost sight in not considering this fact that the petitioner-defendant no. 4 was neither a borrower nor a guarantor. Undisputedly the petitioner had only made a recommendation in favour of the respondent no.4- Vichitra Singh while the loan was sanctioned by the plaintiff- respondent no.3. It was option of the plaintiff either to accept the recommendation or to reject the recommendation made by the petitioner-defendantno.4. It was not at all obligatory upon the plaintiff to accede to the recommendation made by defendant no.4-petitioner. Accordingly, the decree passed by the trial court as well as by the appellate court as against the petitioner-defendant no. 4 is not tenable in the eye of law and the finding to that effect is perverse. Under the law, the petitioner is not under obligation to pay the loan, which was in fact taken by the respondent no. 4-Vichitra Singh. The petitioner has not stood guarantor of the borrower. For the reasons and discussion above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed out right. The writ petition is allowed and the judgment and decree dated 29-5-2004 passed by the trial court as against the petitioner- defendant no. 4 is set aside. The suit as against the defendant no. 4 stands dismissed. Accordingly, the decree dated 29-5-2004 stands 4 modified to the extent only that the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs against the defendant nos. 1 to 3. Rest of the decree passed by the trial court is maintained as against defendant nos. 1 to 3, who are respondent no. 4 to 6 in this petition. No order as to costs. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP