THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6070 of 2005 Dated 28th January, 2011 Between: Mirza Khaja Ali …Petitioner And G.P.Chits & Finance Pvt.Ltd., rep., by its Manager and others …Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6070 of 2005 ORDER: This revision is preferred against the order in E.P.No.82 of 2004 in O.S.No.102 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. The petitioner herein is the 5th J.Dr in the said E.P. The executing Court attached his salary along with the salary of other J.Drs. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come up with this revision. Heard Ms.K.Vijaya, representing Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is one of the sureties for the principal debtor, who was the prized subscriber of the decree holder/chit fund company. The D.Hr filed said E.P for realisation of the decretal amount by attachment of the salaries of not only this petitioner, but also the other J.Drs namely other sureties. The grievance of the petitioner is that the D.Hr did not proceed against the principal debtor and that he filed the E.P for attachment of salaries of himself and the other J.Drs and if that attachment continues and the amounts are realised, the D.Hr may realize more than what the decretal amount due is, and that therefore, the order of the executing Court attaching the salary of the 5th J.Dr i.e., the petitioner herein and the other J.Drs is not correct. There is no force in this contention. It is well settled that a person who stands surety would be jointly and severally liable along with the principal borrower or debtor and that if there are other sureties, the surety in question against whom execution is sought, may seek contribution from the other sureties. Hence, there are no merits in this Civil Revision Petition. One plea raised by the petitioner’s counsel is that if attachment of salary is ordered against all the J.Drs, the D.Hr may get more than what the decretal amount is. The petitioner need not worry about that aspect. It is always open for him to apply before the executing Court to stop the realisation, if it is found that the amounts equivalent to the decretal amount are already realised by the D.Hr. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 28th January, 2011 VJL