11,723.56 on account of principal and Rs.
A. The suit was decreed.
The appellant Bank had granted to respondent No.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit against both the defendants but while passing the decree the trial companyrt directed that the plaintiff Bank shall be at liberty to enforce its dues against defendant No.
This companytention of the appellants was negatived by the High Court.
On the date of the suit Damodar Prasad was indebted to the Bank for Rs.
4 filed objections.
with companyts.
The appeal was filed by defendants 1 to 3 before the High companyrt.
Ramaswamy, Harish N. Salve, Rajiv Kapur and R.P. Kapur for the Appellants.
Savitiri Devi, was impleaded in place of her deceased son as his legal representative.
The suit was companytested by the respondents.
33,705.22 with companyts and the defendants shall pay interest 7 per annum from the date of the institution of the suit till its realisation.
7 relating to the relief, the learned trial companyrt observed as under In view of my findings recorded above, the present suit succeeds and decreeing the same, i hereby pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.
An appeal was filed by defendants 1 to 3 against certain directions companytained in the decree of the lower companyrt as to manner in which the decree is to be executed.
B executed by Kasiappa on 17th April, 1932 in respect of the amount due under Ex.
The decree holder is entitled to proceed against the guarantor judgment debtor No.
3 qua the estate inherited by her from Ajay Kishan Mehta.
The appellant also prayed for a preliminary decree against the respondent No.
1043 B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In paragraph 12 of its judgment, while deciding issue No.
The defendants 1 to 3 companytended to the companytrary.
1888 of 1992.
2 only after having exhausted its remedies against defendant No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.5.1990 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Revision No.
On an application of the appellant Bank the execution of the decree was transferred to Delhi and on numberice being issued by the Court of the Additional District Judge, Delhi guarantor respondent No.
Savitiri Devi, respondent No.
v. Raja Kirtyanand Singh Bahadur, AIR 1932 P.C. 131, distinguished.
39 of 1985 against respondent No 4 judgment debtor Guarantor .
The trial companyrt directed that the plaintiff should bring the secured properties to sale after exhausting the personal remedy against the defendants, meaning the remedy personally against defendants 1 to 3, and also the remedy against the family property of all the defendants.
Raja Raghunandan Prasad Singh Anr.
4 had executed a Deed of Guarantee in favour of the appellant Bank.
The Subordinate Judge had to companysider the companytention put forward on behalf of Kasiappas sons that the properties companyered by Ex.
Decree sheet be prepared and the file be companysigned to the record room.
Shri Janeshwar Kumar Jain, respondent No.
The decree is number in the prescribed form No.
B should be sold only after the plaintiff had exhausted his remedies against defendants 1 to 3 and their family properties.
33,705.22.
1 along with one Shri Ajay Kishan Mehta since deceased and number represented by his mother Smt.
2, had also created an equitable mortgage of his shop situated in Rori Bazar, Sirsa, Haryana, in favour of the appellant.
The plaintiff Bank then filed a suit claiming a decree for the amount due.
The defendants shall pay future interest at the rate of 7 per annum as agreed in the letter Ex.
1,00,000 and respondent No.
1 a Packing Credit Facility to the extent of Rs.
As a security, respondent No.
Shri Ajay Kishan Mehta, having died prior to the filing of the suit, Smt.
33,705.22p.
PAPW 5/4 from the date of the institution of the suit till its realisation.
The main objection was that numbersteps were taken against the mortgaged property i.e. shop and numberaction by way of execution companyld be taken for proceeding against the guarantor till the mortgaged shop is sold and it is only if the realisation from the sale of the shop is deficient that the balance companyld be recovered from the judgment debtors personally.
It was companytended on behalf of the appellants that the lower companyrt should have directed the plaintiff to proceed in the first instance against the security properties and only after they had been sold should the plaintiff have been permitted to proceed against the appellants personally.
2, was a partner of respondent No.
4 for the execution of the decree in question.
The plaintiff Bank shall also be entitled to the amount by way of sale of the shop in case the decretal amount is number paid within a period of three 1036 months from today, decree in question will also be deemed to be a personal decree against all the defendants, but, however, decree will be executable against defendant No.
4, is a guarantor.
2 with a direction that if he companymits a default in payments, a final decree be passed against him with permission to the appellant to apply for a personal decree against him for any deficiency after the sale of the mortgaged property.
587 of 1989.
C. Batra, Vijay Kumar, H. Chawla, S. Prasad and Ms. Sangeeta Aggarwal for the Respondents The Judgment of the Court was delivered by YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J. Special leave granted.
Shri Ram Kishan, respondent No.
The appellant was obliged to file a suit against the respondents for a money decree for Rs.
This companytention was sought to be supported before the High Court by the analogy of a decree to be passed in mortgage suits.
The decree holder challenged this decision dated 5.5.1989 by way of a revision petition before the High Court and the High Court also, following the decision of this Court in Manku Narayanas case supra , dismissed the revision petition and it is against this decision that the present appeal arises.
The plaintiff went in appeal challenging the legality and propriety of this direction.
