Civil Revision No. 3122 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3122 of 2008 Date of decision: 10.08.2009 Balwant Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. J.S. Manipur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.K. Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 5.4.2008, passed by the learned Courts below on an application moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff/petitioner is judgment-debtor under an order passed under Section 32-G of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. The plaintiff/petitioner sought injunction restraining the defendant-Haryana Financial Corporation from auctioning of 1/8th share of the agricultural land, out of the total land measuring 21 kanals 6 marlas comprised in khewat No. 33 khatauni No. 33 as per jamabandi for the year 2003-04, situated within the revenue estate of village Civil Revision No. 3122 of 2008 -2- Bohatwala, Tehsil and District Jind, forcibly and illegally. Along with suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was also moved. The learned trial Court did not find any prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and dismissed the application. The appeal was also dismissed by holding as under: - “Facts are not disputed. The borrower concern with the plaintiff as one of its Directors, is to pay a sum of Rs.10,29,60,370/- with future interest from 1.2.2008. Land of the borrower has already been sold in auction. Authority reported as Pardeep Kumar Singhi Vs. Haryana Financial Corpn., Chandigarh and another, AIR 1986 (P&H) 98 holding that property of principal debtor must be sold first, with due deference, facts of the case in hand being different, at this stage does not advance the cause of the plaintiff. Record reveals that the land of the borrower concern has already been sold; the loan amount is being recovered as arrears of land revenue in terms of Section 77 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. Claim of the plaintiff that he had neither mortgaged his land nor had stood guarantor for repayment of loan by the borrower is not wholly correct. Record reveals that the plaintiff had guaranteed repayment of the loan vide guarantee deed dated 17.5.1995. Even after sale of land of the borrower (which sale has already been confirmed) there is still outstanding amount against the borrower. A certificate of recovery under Section 32(g) of State Financial Corporation Act, has already been issued. Terms and conditions of loan agreement reveal that irrevocable and unconditional guarantee for repayment of loan, was given by the plaintiff.” Civil Revision No. 3122 of 2008 -3- Mr. J.S. Manipur, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contends, that the learned courts below have committed an error in dismissing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, by ignoring the fact that the principal debtor besides mortgaged land had also given collateral security, which is yet to be sold, therefore, the property of the petitioner could not be auctioned till the property of the principal debtor was sold. This plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally mis-conceived. It is well settled law, that the liability of guarantor is co-extensive with principal debtor, and the decree-holder is at liberty to either proceed against the principal debtor or guarantor. The petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Panpori Vs. Central Bank of India, 2002(1) PLR 487, as the preposition laid therein, is contrary to view taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court, holding that the decree-holder has an option to proceed against guarantor or principal debtor. Even otherwise the property of principal debtor already stands sold. The petitioner has no prima facie case, nor balance of convenience can be said to be in his favour. The learned Courts below were right in dismissing the application moved by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 10, 2009 R.S.