9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled a suit, No. 87 of 1974, against the principal debtor and the guarantors, one of them being the respondent, for recovery of a sum of ₹ 5, 626.70. The principal debtor had borrowed a sum of ₹ 5,100/- from the Bank on 21-10-1970, on the strength of the guarantee executed by the respondent and the principal debtor. By the said guarantee the respondent undertook to repay the sum independently. The principal debtor and others had executed a registered simple mortgage deed dated 16-10-1970, in favour of the Bank creating a mortgage In respect of their joint family property in order to secure due payment of a sum of Rs, 2,300/- out of the loan amount of ₹ 5,100/-, Since the amount remained unpaid a suit was filed by the Bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the principal debtor before proceeding against a guarantor or a surety. In that case this Court was considering the correctness of a direction to the creditor to enforce his decree against the surety only after exhausting the remedies against the principal debtor. It was held that in the absence of some special equity, the surety had no right to restrain execution against him until the creditor had exhausted his remedies against the principal. This Court observed that it would work injustice in some cases if action against the guarantee was postponed till remedies against the principal debtor were exhausted, for in certain cases it might take long time before the remedies are exhausted. In that case also the decree-holder was a banking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that such steps were taken, we do not think we will be justified in holding that the High Court was in error in making the direction which is under challenge before us. The appeal, under these circumstances, has therefore to be dismissed. 5. However, we are told by the appellant's counsel that the Bank had taken steps against the mortgaged property and also against the principal debtor. We find in Clause H of the statement of facts in the S L P. the following statement : The petitioners say that they made an application for sale of the mortgage property but there was no offer for purchase of the mortgage property. The petitioners also filed an execution application against the respondent for execution of the said decree by committ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
