L.N.MITTAL,J. - (1.) C . M. No. 26060-C-II of 2012 : This is application for impleading legal representatives of Nabha Singh ­ judgment-debtor no.1 (since deceased). It is alleged in the application that Nabha Singh has left behind three persons, mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application, as his legal heirs, as per registered Will.
(2.) HOWEVER , since the revision petition is being disposed of, necessary steps for impleading legal representatives of Nabha Singh may be taken in the Executing Court. The application stands disposed of accordingly. Allowed as prayed for. Main Case : Suit filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff against Nabha Singh ­ defendant under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 08.06.2009 (Annexure P-2) for recovery of Rs.6,50,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of loan till date of decree and further interest @ 6% per annum till recovery. Leave to defend the suit was granted to the defendant Nabha Singh on furnishing surety bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. The said surety bond was furnished by Nabha Singh's brother Bharpur Singh @ Balvir Singh (since deceased and represented by petitioners herein as his legal representatives). Accordingly, respondent no.1 ­ decree-holder filed execution petition against Nabha Singh as well as Bharpur Singh for recovery of decretal amount exceeding Rs.10,00,000/-. Petitioners herein filed objections in the execution petition alleging that decretal amount should first be recovered from the property of the debtor Nabha Singh before recovering the same from property of the surety. The said objections have been dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated 14.08.2012 (Annexure P-7), which is under challenge in this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.
(3.) OBJECTION raised by the petitioners that decretal amount should first be recovered from the property of the debtor Nabha Singh before recovering the same from property of the surety has been rightly dismissed by the Executing Court because surety is jointly and severally liable with the principal debtor to pay the decretal amount. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that Bharpur Singh furnished surety bond for Rs.5,00,000/- only, and therefore, recovery of decretal amount from his property can be effected to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- only. No such objection was, however, raised before the Executing Court, and therefore, no such objection has been adjudicated upon by the Executing Court.;