9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (8) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 965, for a sum of ₹ 2,700 on the basis of a promissory note executed by the first defendant in respect of which the second and third defendants were sureties. In execution of the decree in E.P. No. 411 of 1965, the appellant's properties were attached on 30th June, 1965. The appellant contended before the Courts below that the decree had made it clear that his liability was only as a sur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ictly in law, with reference to a decree on the negotiable instrument as such, the maker alone would be liable. The present decree therefore really falls into two parts, first a decree on the instrument against the maker (first defendant) and the second, a separate decree on the debt against the guarantor. I therefore, direct allowing the revision to this limited extent, that it now be incorporate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... similar question, held that under Section 128 of the Contract Act, save as provided in the contract, the liability of the surety is coextensive with that of the principal debtor, that the surety thus becomes liable to pay the entire amount immediately on the passing of the decree and that it is not deferred until the creditor exhausts his remedies against the principal-debtor. The learned Judges h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
