The appellant/judgment-debtor No.2, through the present appeal, has called in question judgment and decree, dated 4-5-2006, whereby the learned Judge Banking Court passed a decree for the recovery of Rs.14,60,575, against the appellant and respondents Nos. 2 and 3, jointly and severally together with costs of the suit and cost of funds.
2. Respondent No.1 filed the suit for recovery of Rs.16,86,376, before the learned Judge Banking Court, wherein respondent No.2 was impleaded as principal debtor, while the appellant and respondent No.3 were arrayed as guarantors. It was pleaded by the respondent-Company that respondent No.2 approached the plaintiff and took on lease certain equipment, to which the appellant and respondent No.3 stood guarantors and executed documents however subsequently the defendants committed default and failed to liquidate the outstanding amount, therefore, the suit was filed. The appellant and respondents Nos.2 and 3 filed separate applications seeking leave to defend the suit. The learned Judge Banking Court, after finding that the appellant failed to raise any plausible cause, proceeded to dismiss his application on merits, while the application of respondents Nos.2 and 3 was dismissed for non-prosecution and consequently a decree for a sum of Rs.14,60,575 was passed against the appellant and respondents Nos. 2 and 3, jointly and severally, together with costs and costs of funds, vide impugned judgment and decree, dated 4-5- 2006, hence the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that although the appellant executed the personal guarantee, favouring respondent-Bank, yet the decretal amount be firstly recovered from respondent No.2, who is the principal debtor. He has added that the said respondent is in possession of the leased machinery.
4. We have heard the learned counsel and examined the summoned record. Admittedly, the appellant executed personal guarantee favouring respondent-Company for the amount not exceeding a sum of Rs.Two million one hundred twenty seven thousands six hundred (2,127,600).
We have examined the leave application filed by the appellant and find that he has neither denied his signature on the guarantee nor disputed its execution and correctness. Even today, the learned counsel has admitted execution of the guarantee by the appellant favouring the respondent- Company. Under section 128 of the Contract Act, the liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor. The learned counsel has not been able to demonstrate from the available record that it was otherwise provided in the letter of guarantee. Solitary contention raised by the learned counsel is not tenable. The other objections raised by the appellant in his leave application were not pressed by his learned counsel before the Banking Court, nor the same has been agitated before this Court.
5. In the above perspective, we have examined the impugned judgment and find that the same is not only in accordance with the record of the case but the same is also in consonance with the law on the subject.
6. In view of the above, the present appeal is devoid of any merits, hence stands dismissed.