2025:HHC:9741 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 131 of 2025 Date of decision : 8.4.2024. Anil Patial & others ...Petitioners. Versus Kangra Central Cooperative Bank. ...Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. S.S. Rathore, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have taken exception to order dated 11.11.2024, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nadaun, District Hamirpur in Execution Petition No. 9 of 2023. 2. The only grievance raised by petitioner No.1 is that he is the principal debtor and petitioners No.2 and 3 are the sureties. A decree has been passed against them. The decree- holder/respondent-bank has taken steps for attachment of the property of the sureties in the first instance, whereas the action should have been taken against the principal debtor i.e. petitioner No.1. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 3. No interference can be made in the impugned order dated 11.11.2024, as it cannot be said to be either illegal or perverse. There is no error of jurisdiction also. The settled position is that the decree-holder has option to take coercive steps for execution of decree against the sureties or the principal debtor and it is not for the judgment debtors to dictate the terms. The judgment debtors are jointly and severally liable and thus, the decree can be executed against any of them. 4. In result, the petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 8th April, 2025. (kck)