A creditor may proceed simultaneously against the principal debtor and guarantor.

The petitioners, Postal Assistants at Balrampur Post Office, stood as guarantors for loans obtained during 2022–23 by Vikrant Dubey, their colleague and the principal borrower. The loans comprised a festival loan of ₹50,000, a short-term loan of ₹3,00,000, and a personal loan of ₹18,00,000 from the U.P. Postal Primary Cooperative Bank Ltd.

Upon the principal borrower’s default, the Bank initiated recovery proceedings against him and also requested the Postal Department to deduct ₹10,000 per month from the salary of each petitioner as guarantor.

The petitioners challenged the proposed salary deductions under Article 226, contending that the Bank was required to first exhaust its remedies against the principal borrower before proceeding against the guarantors.

They relied on Ram Kishun v. State of U.P., (2012) 11 SCC 511, and referred to a communication dated 6 March 2026 in which the Postal Department had questioned recovery from the guarantors before clarifying the principal borrower’s status.

The Court applied Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, under which a surety’s liability is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor unless the contract provides otherwise; accordingly, the creditor may proceed against the principal debtor, the surety, or both simultaneously.

Relying on Bank of Bihar Ltd. v. Damodar Prasad, AIR 1969 SC 297, State Bank of India v. Indexport Registered, (1992) 3 SCC 159, and Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd. v. Biswanath Jhunjhunwala, (2009) 9 SCC 478, the Court held that the creditor is not required to exhaust remedies against the principal debtor before proceeding against the surety.

The Court also relied on Ram Kishun v. State of U.P., (2012) 11 SCC 511, and SBI v. Saksaria Sugar Mills Ltd., (1986) 2 SCC 145, for the principles that a surety cannot dictate the sequence of recovery and that the surety’s liability is immediate, not deferred.

The Court held that the petitioners had voluntarily guaranteed the principal borrower’s loans and had not produced any contractual term postponing their liability or requiring the Bank to proceed first against the principal borrower. Consequently, Section 128 applied, making their liability co-extensive with and immediately enforceable alongside that of the principal borrower.

The Bank was therefore entitled to seek recovery through monthly salary deductions without first exhausting remedies against Vikrant Dubey. The petitioners’ reliance on Ram Kishun was rejected because the cited passages themselves affirmed the creditor’s right to proceed directly against the surety.

The Court further held that the absence of a personal hearing did not invalidate the recovery, since the liability arose from the contractual guarantee and the petitioners remained free to pursue civil remedies, including subrogation or contribution against the principal borrower.

The proposed deduction of ₹10,000 per month from each petitioner’s salary was held legally sustainable.

Both writ petitions were dismissed, with no order as to costs.