In joint and several liability, executing courts should proceed against the owner before the driver if the driver has satisfied the principal award.

The Petitioner, a driver of an offending vehicle, was held jointly and severally liable along with the vehicle owner for a motor accident claim award of ₹14,70,344/- plus interest

The Petitioner deposited ₹15.00 lakhs, covering the principal amount but leaving a portion of the interest unsatisfied

While the Executing Court initially ordered recovery of the remainder from the owner via attachment warrant on 23.12.2023 [para. 6], it later reversed course.

By an order dated 19.11.2024, the Tribunal rejected the Petitioner’s application to proceed against the owner, holding that the decree-holder has the absolute choice to execute against any joint tortfeasor

1. Whether the Executing Court was justified in proceeding exclusively against the driver for the remaining interest amount when the driver had already satisfied the principal award and the owner had failed to appear

2. Whether the principle of "joint and several liability" allows the court to ignore its prior order to proceed against a specific co-debtor in the interest of equity

The Court applied the doctrine of "Joint and Several Liability" regarding joint tortfeasors (driver and owner), where the owner is vicariously liable for the driver's negligence

Order 21 Rule 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which prescribes the mode of executing a decree for the payment of money against the property or person of the judgment debtor

The Court acknowledged that while claimants generally have the right to choose which judgment debtor to proceed against in cases of joint and several liability [para. 8], the specific circumstances of this case demanded an equitable approach.

The Court noted that the Petitioner/driver had already shown bona fides by depositing ₹15.00 lakhs—more than the principal amount—while the owner had completely evaded the proceedings

The Court found the Tribunal’s sudden shift to target only the driver, despite its own previous order dated 23.12.2023 to attach the owner’s property, to be unreasonable

It reasoned that since only a small interest portion remained, the primary burden of the remaining recovery should now shift to the owner to ensure justice between the co-judgment debtors

The High Court set aside the impugned order and disposed of the Revision with a direction to the Executing Court to first proceed against the owner of the vehicle under Order 21 Rule 30 of the CPC for the recovery of the remaining amount