Pendency Of Execution Petition Against Judgment Debtor No Bar To Institute Other Execution Petitions Against Remaining Debtors: AP High Court

A Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Balaji Medamalli was dealing with a revision petition, where M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited (petitioner) had initially obtained an arbitral award directing the borrowers, guarantors and other respondents (Respondents 2-8), including the petitioner, to pay Rs.54.24 lakhs with interest at 18% per annum. In pursuance to this, it first filed an execution petition against the property of one judgment debtor. During the pendency of the petition, it filed another execution petition against the petitioner, who was also one of the guarantors/judgment debtors, seeking execution against his property.

The petitioner challenged the registration of the second execution petition contending that the decree holder must first proceed against the principal borrower and could not simultaneously proceed against the guarantor. He further argued that the Execution Court ought not to have entertained the second Execution Petition, and that the Decree Holder ought to have first exhausted the remedy against the borrower who is primarily liable for the amount from the property of the borrower in the first EP and thereafter if the decree remained unsatisfied, he could have proceeded against the other sureties or guarantors. He thus argued that the decree holder was prohibited by Section 145 CPC to proceed against the petitioner who is guarantor.

The Bench referred to Section 145, which relates to enforcement of liability of surety, and provides that where a person has furnished security or given a guarantee for the performance of any decree, payment of any money, restitution of property taken in execution, or fulfilment of any condition imposed under an order of the Court, the decree or order may be executed against him personally to that extent, or by sale of property furnished as security. In light of this provision, the Court heard,

“Section 145 CPC does not create a bar for filing the execution petition for enforcement of liability of the surety by filing Execution Petition in addition to the filing of EP against the Borrower (J.Dr.). The pendency of the execution petition against the principal borrower is not a legal bar to proceed against the surety/guarantor.”

Thus, in the context of the present case, the Court concluded,

“… the petitioner/guarantor was the party in the award proceedings and the award stands against him also. The direction under the award was to the respondents therein. The petitioner is one of the J.Dr(s). So, it cannot be said that the decree holder should exhaust the remedy of execution against the borrower first and then should proceed against the petitioner if so required. Pendency of one execution petition against one of the Judgment debtors is not a bar to institute other execution petition against the remaining Judgment debtors. Nothing has brought on record to support the argument that the execution petition was not maintainable. In any case the execution petition has only been registered.”

Noting that the petitioner has the opportunity to raise objections before the Execution Court, the Division Bench dismissed the revision petition.

Case Details:

Case Number: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.808 OF 2026

Case Title: Potturi Venkata Rama Vanaja v. M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd.

Click Here To Read/Download Order