IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.6241 of 2007 Date of decision: 4.11.2008 Piara Lal. -----Petitioner Vs. Chandigarh SC, BC and Minorities Financial and Dev. Corpn. & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present:- Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for respondent No.3. Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate for respondents No.5 & 6. ----- ORDER: 1. The grievance in this petition is that recovery certificate has been issued against the petitioner in respect of loan advanced to respondent No.2 Paramjit Lal, for which the petitioner was one of the guarantors. 2. Case of the petitioner is that loan was sanctioned to respondent No.2 for purchasing a goods carrier on 11.10.1995. The petitioner was working as a Sweeper. Loan was to be repaid in 54 C.W.P. No.6241 of 2007 monthly instalments commencing after expiry of three months. The first instalment was paid, but there was default in second, seventh and tenth instalments and thereafter, defaults continued. Statement of account has been filed as Annexure P-5. 3. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that under Clause (XXIII) of the memorandum of association of the respondent No.1-Corporation, the affected person is required to be heard before determining the amount due, which was not done. Further contention is that the Corporation should proceed against the debtor and the vehicle or other guarantors and not against the petitioner. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Though there is no dispute with the proposition that affected party is required to be heard before any adverse order is passed, when facts are not in dispute, requirement of giving opportunity will just be a formality and action cannot be held to be vitiated for want of such opportunity. We asked the petitioner to explain his stand whether the amount was due and whether the petitioner was willing to make the amount. In reply thereof, stand of the petitioner is that the Corporation should proceed against the principal debtor and other guarantors as the petitioner was a poor person. Thus, even if an opportunity could be given to the petitioner, the situation will remain the same. 6. As regards the contention that the Corporation should proceed against the principal debtor and other guarantors, the legal position is well settled that liability of the guarantor is co-extensive with the liability of principal debtor which is joint and several. No objection 2 C.W.P. No.6241 of 2007 can, thus, be taken if the Corporation proceeds against the petitioner, who is one of the guarantors. Stand of the Corporation is that it has also proceeded against the principal debtor and the other guarantors and there is nothing to show that the principal debtor has been discharged. 7. The questions raised in the petition are disputed questions of fact about liability of the petitioner under the contract and cannot be gone into in summary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. We do not find any ground to interfere with the action initiated by the Corporation. 9. The petition is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE November 04, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3