HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:5979 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by the petitioner-4th Judgment debtor aggrieved by order dated 16.11.2010 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada issuing fresh attachment of salary of the petitioner and 3rd judgment debtor in E.P.No.193 of 2007 in O.S.No.564 of 2005. The petitioner-4th Judgment debtor is the guarantor to the principal borrower in the chit transaction between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant-1st judgment debtor. For realization of the amount of Rs.1,08,875/- from the defendants-Judgment debtors, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.564 of 2005 and the said suit was decreed on 15.11.2006 and challenging the said decree, A.S.No.36 of 2007 was filed and the same was disposed of confirming the judgment in the suit. As there are no other attachments against the salaries of judgment debtors 3 & 4, who are working as Railway employee and Municipal employee, the Court below allowed the E.P. and ordered attachment of their salaries for realization of the decretal amount subject to Section 60 of CPC. Questioning the same, the present revision is filed by the 4th Judgment debtor. On 24.12.2010, while ordering notice before admission, this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings in the E.P. subject to the condition of the petitioner-4th Judgment debtor depositing 1/4th of the decretal amount within four weeks from that day. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-4th Judgment debtor submits that she has deposited 1/4th of the amount as directed by this Court, whereas the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent-plaintiff submitted that except the principal amount, the interest accrued thereon as per the decree has not been deposited. Further, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-4th Judgment debtor that unless the decree holder exhausts his remedy for realization of the decretal amount against the principal debtor, he cannot proceed against the revision petitioner-guarantor. It is now well settled proposition of law that when the liability under the decree is joint and several, the decree holder can execute the decree against one of the Judgment debtors for realization of the decretal amount. In view of the same, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-4th Judgment debtor has no force. In the above circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy Date:19th August, 2011 Nn. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:5979 OF 2010 19.8.2011 Nn