1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.548 OF 2006. The Vaidyanath Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Parali Vaijnath through its Special Recovery Officer namely Kamlakar S/o Ramrao Shinde,Age 52 years, Occ.Service as above, R/o Parali Vaijnath, Dist.Beed. ... Petitioner. Versus The Assistant Registrar and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.Rajendra Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.N.B.Borade, A.G.P. for the State. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 11.03.2010. PER COURT 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith 2 and heard finally by consent. 2. Though served, Respondent Nos.3 to 5 remained absent. 3. The learned A.G.P. Mr.Borade, has no objection to finally adjudicate the matter at peremptory stage. 4. The petitioner - Cooperative Bank challenges order rendered by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Latur in Revision Petition No.87/2004. By the impugned order, the learned Joint Registrar held that the recovery proceedings can not be executed against the guarantors. 5. It appears that the petitioner - Cooperative Bank obtained certificate U/s 101 of the MCS Act, (Annexure "A"). The certificate was issued against the borrower and both the guarantors. The Respondent No.3 is the borrower and had obtained the loan for grocery stores. The Joint Registrar held that the Certificate was 3 issued only against the borrower and not against the guarantors and, therefore, as a first measure, the recovery shall be effected only from the borrower and that the properties of the guarantors shall not be subjected to sale by public auction. 6. Having heard leaned counsel and learned A.G.P., and on going through the relevant orders, it is amply clear that the Joint Registrar committed factual inaccuracy while holding that recovery certificate was issued only against the main borrower and not against the guarantors. The certificate itself shows that all the three were jointly and severally held responsible to pay the amount of loan and, therefore,the certificate was issued against all of them. There is no foundation to the finding of the learned Joint Registrar that the recovery certificate would be operative only against the main borrower and, therefore,the recovery proceedings can not be initiated against the guarantors. The impugned judgment seems to have been rendered without application of judicial 4 mind. The impugned judgment is totally unsustainable and perverse. For, there is absolutely nothing on record to hold that the guarantors stood exonerated from the liability arising out of the contract of guarantee as provided U/s 128 of the Act. The liability of the surety/guarantor is co-extensive with the liability of the borrower. 7. Considering these aspects of the matter, the petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the learned Joint Registrar is quashed. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (C) and (D). No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp54806