1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8749 OF 2009 WITH REVIEW APPLICATION (st.) NO.17211 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.1739 OF 2004. Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders 1. Heard Shri S.S. Chaudhari, learned Advocate, for applicants-appellants. These are the two applications. C.A. No.8749 of 2009 is for condonation of delay of 82 days in filing review application and the second is review application for reviewing the order passed by this court on 21.4.2009 disposing of Second Appeal No.1739 of 2004. Civil Application seeking 2 condonation of delay and review application are taken up together for hearing. 2. Admittedly, the present applicants who were the original appellants before the District Court and also before this court, were the guarantors and original defendant No. 1 was the principal debtor who had purchased a matador out of loan advanced by Respondent-Bank. 3. It is submitted before this court that the execution was not started against the principal borrower, though no appeal was filed by the principal debtor. The matador purchased out of loan amount was not attached in spite of several letters. Original suit by 3 bank was for recovery of Rs.66,600/= with interest. The suit was decreed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna against all defendants i.e. present applicants and respondent No.2. As against the said decree, present applicants filed R.C.A. No. 219 of 2000 in the District Court, Jalna, but the same was dismissed and against the said dismissal of appeal, Second Appeal No. 1739 of 2004 was filed which is disposed of by order dated 21.4.2009 which is under review. 4. Non-initiation of execution proceedings against the principal borrower or non attachment of the vehicle by Respondent-Bank cannot be a substantial question of law in the second appeal and, therefore, the 4 decision in second appeal cannot be reviewed on these two points. If it is the say of present applicants that under the law, though decree is against the principal debtor and also guarantors, unless attempts are made or steps are taken against principal borrower for recovery of loan, no steps can be taken against the guarantors, in my opinion such an issue cannot be agitated before this court. 5. There is no reason to review the order dated 21.4.2009 disposing of second appeal and hence, review application has no merits. So, both applications are, accordingly, dismissed. Date:24/09/2009 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/ca8749.09 5