THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.863 OF 2010 DATED: 07-03-2011. Between K.Srinivasa Rao … Petitioner-J.Dr.No.4 And 1.Kiran Chit Fund Company, rep. by its Managing Partner K.Sagar and three others. …Respondents-D.Hr and J.Drs.1 to 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.863 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed aggrieved by the order, dated 22-01-2010, in E.P.No.174 of 2006 in O.S.No.5280 of 1998, on the file of the IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in issuing warrant against the petitioner for realization of decretal amount amount. 2. The only grievance of the petitioner herein (J.Dr.No.4) is that on earlier occasion, an amount of Rs.22,850/- out of decretal amount of Rs.39,882/- was recovered by way of attachment of salary of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is judgment debtor No.4. He stood as one of the guarantors to J.Dr.No.1. Under Section 146 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, where two or more persons are co-sureties for the same debt or duty, either jointly or severally and whether under the same or different contracts and whether with or without the knowledge of each other, the co-sureties in the absence of any contract to the contrary, are liable, as between themselves, to pay each an equal share of the whole debt, or of that part of it which remains unpaid by the principal debtor. Illustration (a) reads as follows: “A,B,C are sureties to D for the sum of Rs3,000/- tent to E. E makes default in payment. A,B.C are liable as between themselves to pay Rs.1,000/- each. In view of the above illustration, the petitioner is liable to pay each in equal share of the whole debt. To that extent, the petitioner has already paid to the extent of his share. Under Section 147 of the Contract Act, co-sureties who are bound in different sums are liable to pay equally so far as the limits of their respective obligations permit. Therefore, if the decretal amount is divided into three equal parts, equal amount has already been recovered from the J.Dr.No.4. This aspect of law was not noticed by the trial Court and passed the impugned order. In view of the fact that the amount which is liable to pay as per Section 147 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, has already been attached and sent for the amount by the Court, the question of further attaching the amount from the salary of J.Dr.No.4, does not arise. Therefore, the Decree holder is permitted to proceed against the other two sureties who stood as guarantors to the principal borrower. 3. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 22-01-2010, in E.P.No.174 of 2006 in O.S.No.5280 of 1998, on the file of the IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. No order as to costs. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 07-03-2011 Hsd