Lal Chand vs The S.B.B.J. And Ors. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2571 Raj

[2023/RJJD/007973]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 165/2017

Shri Lalchand S/o Shri Malooram, By Caste Dhatarwal Jat, Senior Draftman, Executive Engineer, R W S R P, Division Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh Rajasthan.

----Appellant Versus

1. The State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur, Head Office Tilak Marg Jaipur Rajasthan Through Its Branch Ma, Branch State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur, Hanumangarh Junction, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh Rajasthan.

2. The State Of Rajasthan Through District Collector, Hanumangarh Rajasthan.

3. Rwsrp, Division Hanumangarh Junction, Through Executive Engineer Rwsrp Division Hanumangarh Junction Rajasthan.

4. Shri Dinesh Chand S/o Shri Prakash Chand, By Caste Bansal Aggarwal, Assistant Engineer And Technical Helper, Executive Engineer Rwsrp Division Hanumangarh Junction, At Present Resident Of A-701, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Vyas for Mr. Jagdish Vyas Ms. Khushbu Choudhary for Ms. Abhilasha Bora

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

29/03/2023

Admit. Issue Notice.

As respondent No.1-Bank is represented by learned counsel,

notice need not be issued to respondent No.1. The service of

respondent No.4 has already been dispensed with by this Court on

[2023/RJJD/007973] (2 of 3) [CFA-165/2017]

an application preferred by learned counsel for the appellant

therefore, notice need not be issued to respondent No.4 also.

Issue notice to respondent Nos.2 and 3 only.

Let a reminder for the record be issued.

Heard both the learned counsel on the stay petition.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

appellant being the guarantor would not be liable to satisfy the

decree as there was an 'irrevocable letter of authority' issued by

respondent Nos.2 and 3 being employer of the borrower

respondent No.4. Therefore in terms of the said letter of authority,

it was only respondent Nos.2 and 3 who were under an obligation

to deduct the amount from the salary qua the installments and the

same having not been done, they were only liable to satisfy the

decree.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is the

liability of borrower and the guarantor to repay the loan in terms

of law and further that even if there was any agreement entered

into between the borrower and the department, the respondent-

Bank would not be bound by the same as the loan agreement was

entered into between the borrower and the bank to which the

appellant was the guarantor.

A perusal of the impugned judgment and decree shows that

the Court below has specifically reached to a finding that the

receipt of the loan was an admitted fact and the same having

remained unpaid was also admitted on record. So far as the

liability of the guarantor is concerned, it is the settled proposition

of law that it is the discretion of the decree holder as to against

whom he intends to execute the decree.

[2023/RJJD/007973] (3 of 3) [CFA-165/2017]

In view of the above observations, no case for interim relief

is made out.

The stay petition is therefore, dismissed.

(REKHA BORANA),J 71-AbhishekS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)