THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 13th August 2009 WRIT APPEAL NO.576 of 2002 Between: Prudential Co-operative Bank Ltd., R.P.Road, Secunderabad, rep.by its Managing Director. …APPELLANT AND 1. Sri V.Venkateswara Rao, S/o.V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, R/o.Plot No.LIB B-363, A.S.Rao Nagar, ECIL Housing Society, Hyderabad. (Petitioner) And two others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.576 of 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) The appellant-bank filed this appeal, inter alia, seeking to assail the order dated 01.02.2002 in W.P.No.25226 of 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, allowing the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent herein, wherein he sought a Writ of Mandamus declaring the award passed by the second respondent in A/C.No.H43/189 dated 30.11.1998 as illegal and arbitrary. The main ground urged on behalf of the writ petitioner was that he is a guarantor and since the loan borrowed by the principal debtor was not discharged, recovery proceedings were initiated in ARC.436/98 and since the writ petitioner could not appear, for the reasons mentioned therein, an ex parte award was passed. In view of the same, an opportunity should be given to the writ petitioner for contesting the same. However, taking into consideration of the said reason, the learned Single Judge set aside the impugned award and remanded the matter to the second respondent herein for affording an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and pass fresh orders. Hence, the appeal. Having considered the submissions made and on perusal of the material available on record, it is quite apparent that no such similar step has been taken against the principal debtor on the ground of ex parte. Further, the writ petitioner did not implead the principal debtor as a party to the proceedings. Especially where such an award is sought to be set aside, the presence of the writ petitioner is quite necessary. Even otherwise, the liability of the writ petitioner in the capacity of the guarantor is always co-extensive to the liability of the principal debtor. Therefore, he cannot step into the shoes of the principal debtor independently and he does not have any right to assail the same on his own. In view of the same, the very Writ Petition framed and filed by the writ petitioner, who is only a guarantor, is totally misconceived and unsustainable. The Writ Appeal is allowed and the order dated 01.02.2001 in W.P.No.25226 of 2001 is set aside. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) _________________ (SANJAY KUMAR, J) 13th August 2009 RRB