19-wp11353-2023 & connected.doc AGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11353 OF 2023 Shree Bhairavnath Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit & Anr. … Petitioners V/s. Dadaso Dinkar Dhole & Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.11356 OF 2023 Shree Bhairavnath Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit & Anr. … Petitioners V/s. Sitaram Sambhaji Benke & Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.11363 OF 2023 Shree Bhairavnath Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit & Anr. … Petitioners V/s. Revannath Vitthal Waghchure & Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.11360 OF 2023 Shree Bhairavnath Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit & Anr. … Petitioners V/s. Tukaram Sitaram Benke & Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.11361 OF 2023 Shree Bhairavnath Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit & Anr. … Petitioners V/s. Ramchandra Aba Aswale & Ors. … Respondents 1 ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Digitally signed by ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Date: 2025.11.19 18:21:32 +0530 19-wp11353-2023 & connected.doc WITH WRIT PETITION NO.11362 OF 2023 Shree Bhairavnath Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit & Anr. … Petitioners V/s. Sambhaji Sitaram Benke & Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.11358 OF 2023 Shree Bhairavnath Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit & Anr. … Petitioners V/s. Rajendra Balkrushna Gulve & Ors. … Respondents Mr. S.S. Borolkar with Mr. Manoj A. Patil (through V.C.) for the petitioners. Mr. Shailendra S. Kanetkar with Mr. Shubham Suryawanshi for respondent No.1. Mr. P.V. Nelson Rajan, AGP for respondent No.5-State in WP/11353/2023. Ms. M.S. Srivastava, AGP for respondent No.5-State in WP/11356/2023. Smt. V.R. Raje, AGP for respondent No.5-State in WP/11360/2023. Ms. Savina S. Crasto, AGP for respondent No.5-State in WP/11363/2023. Smt. S.D. Chipade, AGP for respondent No.5-State in WP/11361/2023. Mr. B. Dahiphale, AGP for respondent No.5-State in WP/11362/2023. Smt. T. N. Bhatia, AGP for respondent No.5-State in WP/11358/2023. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 19, 2025 2 19-wp11353-2023 & connected.doc P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner is a cooperative credit society. It questions the order passed in revision, by which the attachment placed on the property of respondent No.1 has been lifted. The revisional authority held that the borrower has already mortgaged sufficient property. According to the revisional authority, that security can satisfy the dues of the petitioner. This reasoning calls for close scrutiny. The fact that the borrower has mortgaged property does not, by itself, create any bar against proceeding against the guarantor. The law treats the guarantor as equally responsible. The creditor can choose the source from which it seeks repayment. The revisional authority ignored this settled position and interfered with a lawful attachment. 3. The principle governing liability of a guarantor is clear. Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act states that the liability of a surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor. The law gives the creditor full freedom to choose the person against whom it proceeds. The creditor may act against the borrower. It may act against the guarantor. It may act against both. The guarantor cannot insist that the creditor must first exhaust the security furnished by the borrower. If the creditor recovers the dues from the guarantor, the guarantor has an independent statutory right to recover that amount from the borrower through appropriate proceedings. This balance protects both sides. The revisional authority overlooked this statutory scheme. It assumed that the 3 19-wp11353-2023 & connected.doc creditor must first proceed against the mortgaged property. That assumption has no legal foundation. 4. The revisional authority therefore committed a jurisdictional error. It applied a principle that the statute does not recognise. It set aside an attachment that was lawfully ordered. The attachment was based on the co-extensive liability of the guarantor. There was no evidence to show that the guarantor stood discharged from liability or that the attachment violated any statutory protection. On these facts, the revisional authority had no basis to interfere. Its order cannot stand. 5. Hence, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) in each writ petition. (AMIT BORKAR, J.) 4