JAGDISH CHANDRA SAHANI Vs. PRAKASH KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts which have led to the filing of this petition be noticed as under : A money suit was filed by Canara Bank. It was filed against all the parties who figure in this petition. M/s S. D. Enterprises who figure as respondent No. 5 in this petition was the principal borrower. Manohar Singh who has since died and who is represented by respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 also figured as defendant as surety! The present petitioner also figured as defendant in the aforementioned suit as surety. The suit filed by Canara Bank was decreed. Manohar Singh paid the decretal amount. After the payment was made, Manohar Singh filed a Civil Suit claiming reimbursement from the present petitioner as also from M/s S. D. Enterprises. In this an application was preferred for deletion of the name of the present petitioner/defendant. It was alleged that Manohar Singh is entitled to reimbursement only from the principal borrower and not from the co-surety. This contention did not find favour with the trial Court. The contention raised by the present petitioner was rejected. It is against the above order the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the provision of Section 140 of the Contract Act. He submits that the amount can be recovered only from the principal debtor and not from the surety. The learned counsel for the respondent has however placed reliance on Sections 69 and 70 of the Contract Act. According to him the amount can be recovered even from a co-surety also. Before noticing further the factual and legal submission, it would be apt to note the relevant statutory provisions i. e. Sections 69, 70 and 140 of the Contract Act. These reads as under :

(3.) A bare reading of Section 140 of the Act indicates that surety has a right against a principal borrower only.