The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that a decree holder is not legally barred from filing an execution petition against a guarantor or surety while another execution petition against the principal borrower is already pending. The Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Balaji Medamalli clarified that Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) does not mandate that a decree holder must first exhaust remedies against the primary borrower before proceeding against a surety.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Potturi Venkata Rama Vanaja, was a judgment debtor (J.Dr.5) in an arbitration matter (Case No. ASV/SF/123/2018). An award was passed on December 12, 2018, by Arbitrator A.S. Velmurugan, directing the respondents (including the petitioner) to pay M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd. a sum of ₹54,24,277.50 with 18% interest per annum.
The decree holder (Respondent No. 1) initially filed E.P. No. 1329 of 2021 against all judgment debtors but sought execution specifically against the property of one J.Dr., Ms. A. Venkata Lakshmi Girija. While this petition was pending, the decree holder filed a second petition, E.P. No. 1003 of 2024, specifically against the petitioner (the guarantor) and their schedule property. The petitioner challenged the registration of this second execution petition before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the petitioner contended that filing a second execution petition against a guarantor while the first against the borrower was still pending is “contrary to law.” It was argued that the execution court should not have entertained the second petition and that the decree holder must first exhaust the remedy against the borrower, who is primarily liable. The petitioner further claimed that Section 145 of the CPC prohibited the decree holder from proceeding against the guarantor in this manner.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court examined the provisions of Section 145 of the CPC, which pertains to the enforcement of the liability of a surety. The Bench observed:
“Section 145 CPC does not create a bar for filing the execution petition for enforcement of liability of the surety by filing Execution Petition in addition to the filing of EP against the Borrower (J.Dr.). The pendency of the execution petition against the principal borrower is not a legal bar to proceed against the surety/guarantor.”
The Court further noted that since the petitioner was a party to the original arbitration proceedings and the award stood against them as well, they were equally liable. The Bench emphasized:
“It cannot be said that the decree holder should exhaust the remedy of execution against the borrower first and then should proceed against the petitioner if so required. Pendency of one execution petition against one of the Judgment debtors is not a bar to institute other execution petition against the remaining Judgment debtors.”
The Court also highlighted that the execution petition had only been registered, and the petitioner still maintains the opportunity to raise valid legal objections before the Execution Court.
Decision
Finding no merit in the arguments, the High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition. The Court concluded that no case for interference was made out regarding the registration of the execution petition.
Case Details
Case Title: Potturi Venkata Rama Vanaja v. M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd., & 7 others
Case No.: Civil Revision Petition No. 808 of 2026
Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari & Justice Balaji Medamalli
Date: 23.04.2026
