(1) 56.WP6023.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6023 OF 2026 Dhanraj S/o Shamrao Kharbade VERSUS Shriram Chits (m.) Ltd.thr. Authorised Signatutory And Others. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. R.S. Mohod, Advocate for the Petitioner(s). Mr. Rajesh V. Shah and Mr. Varun R. Shah, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE , J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 03, 2026. P.C. 1. The present petition challenges order below Exh. 59 in Reg. Darkhast No. 100275/2012. By way of said order, a warrant of attachment of the salary has been passed against the present petitioner. The said Regular Darkhast, i.e., execution, was filed by the present respondent No. 1 for executing the money decree passed in its favour and against the present respondents. It can also be seen from the record of the matter that the present petitioner, even though served with a suit summons, did not choose to appear, which prompted the Court to issue the salary attachment warrant. It also transpires from the record that the petitioner thereafter moved two applications below Exh. 60 and Exh. 62, thereby praying for stay of the warrant of attachment. Pursuant to this, the executing Court passed an order on 29.04.2026, thereby staying the order passed earlier for six months from the date of that order. 2. I have heard Mr. R.S. Mohod, learned counsel for the petitioner, as also Mr. Rajesh V. Shah and Mr. Varun R. Shah, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. Shubham 2026:BHC-NAG:11808 (2) 56.WP6023.26 3. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, even though there are other guarantors, the present respondent No. 1 is only behind the present petitioner. However, he does not dispute that he stood as a guarantor to the loan advanced to respondent No. 2, who is the principal borrower. Thus, the fact remains that the present petitioner stood as a guarantor. He now cannot make a grievance that the original decree holder is trying to execute the money decree, which is not challenged, only against the present petitioner. 4. I find no perversity in the impugned order. The petition is without merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. The petition is dismissed accordingly. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) Shubham