1 WP-7336/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7336 OF 2009 Shri. Vazir Usman Kondivkar and anr. ..Petitioners. Vs. Raigad Zillah Nagari Sahakari Patsantha Mahasangh Mydt. Alibag and ors. ..Respondents. Mr. M.A. Choudhary, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Sachin Chavan, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr.Machindra Deshmukh, Advocate for the Respondent No.5,6 and 10 to 12. Mr. S.D.Rayarikar, AGP. For the Respondent No.17. CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. DATE : 20th September, 2010. P.C. :- 1 A dispute was filed by the first respondent against the petitioners and others. At the relevant time, the petitioners were the directors of the third respondent-credit society. The said dispute was filed by the first respondent for recovery of amount due and payable by the said Credit Society. The amount was advanced by the first respondent to the third respondent credit society. The Co-operative Court passed an award for recovery of the amount against the credit society and its guarantors including the petitioners. The award of the Co-operative Court has been confirmed in appeal by the Co- operative Appellate Court. These are the Judgments and orders impugned in this petition. 2 WP-7336/2009 2 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had signed the guarantee letter only in their capacity as directors of the credit society. He submitted that for some reasons the petitioners have been chosen by the first respondent for proceeding with execution though third respondent credit society and other guarantors are holding immovable properties. He submitted that the property which is attached is the property of the joint family of the petitioners which could not have been attached and sold in execution. 3 I have considered the submissions. The challenge in the petition is to the award made by the Co-op. Court and confirmed by the Appellate Co-operative Court. Admittedly, the petitioners are the guarantors. Liability of the petitioners is joint and several with the principal borrower. The liability of the petitioners is co-extensive with the liability of the principal borrower. Therefore, it is not possible to find fault with the impugned judgments and orders. It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that property which is attached could not have been attached as the same is the joint family property of the petitioners. This ground cannot be agitated in this petition. It is for the petitioners to adopt appropriate 3 WP-7336/2009 remedy for challenging orders passed in execution. Subject to above observations, no case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is rejected. JUDGE