THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No. 6267 of 2009 Date: 9.3.2010 Between: P.N. Rupe Helan ... Petitioner and Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd., and others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No. 6267 of 2009 ORDER: The 2nd respondent is a subscriber to a chit with the 1st respondent. The petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 stood as guarantors for payment of instalments. The 1st respondent filed O.S. No. 52 of 1998 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa for recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,890.50ps. The suit was decreed on 16.12.1998. Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed E.P. Nos. 207 of 1999, 290 of 2004 and 420 of 2005 against the petitioner herein. They were dismissed on one ground or the other. E.P. No. 235 of 2009 was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 16,991/-. It was mentioned that the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in the year 2006 and still a sum of Rs. 16,691/- is due. A request was made for attachment of the salary of the petitioner. The petitioner is now working as Warden in B.C. Welfare Hostel. The E.P. was resisted by the petitioner and he stated that the E.P. is not maintainable. He further pleaded that though the principal judgment debtor is an employee in the A.P.S.R.T.C., the 1st respondent is harassing him deliberately. Through its orders dated 30.10.2009, the Executing Court allowed the E.P. and directed attachment of the salary of the petitioner. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri T.V.S. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kunche Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent appears to have taken advantage of the fact that a decree holder has the liberty to proceed against the principal judgment debtor or the sureties. Except, E.P. No. 207 of 1999, the rest of the E.Ps., referred to above were filed against the petitioner alone. While E.P. No. 207 of 1999 and E.P. No. 290 of 2004 were dismissed for non- payment of batta, E.P. No. 420 of 2005 was dismissed on merits, still the present E.P. was filed. Though a specific plea was raised by the petitioner as regards maintainability of the E.P., the Executing Court did not address that issue. The liberty given by law to a decree holder to proceed against the judgment debtor or the sureties, cannot be permitted to be misused. It is a different matter if the E.P. is filed against all the judgment debtors and property of one or salary of one of them is chosen. In the instant case, the 1st respondent directed its attention and action only against the petitioner, who figured as a surety. It is not as if he made any efforts to recover the amount from the principal judgment debtor and faced any difficulty. Obviously, it appears to be a case of collusion between the respondents 1 and 2. To be fair to the 1st respondent, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- in the year 2006. Though successive E.Ps. were dismissed against the petitioner, the greed of the 1st respondent did not stop at that and virtually it wanted to fasten the liability arising from the 2nd respondent, squarely upon the petitioner. It has resorted to gross misuse of the process of the Court and the order under revision cannot be sustained in law. The Civil Revision petition is accordingly allowed and it is directed that the 1st respondent shall not be entitled to take any steps against the petitioner unless he exhausts his remedies against the principal judgment debtor and other sureties. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY,J DATE: 9th March, 2010 pnb