The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed Civil Revision Petition No.808 of 2026 filed by Potturi Venkata Rama Vanaja, a guarantor and judgment debtor, challenging the registration of E.P.No.1003 of 2024 in Arbitration Case No.ASV/SF/123/2018. A Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Balaji Medamalli held that Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not create any bar against filing a separate execution petition against a surety or guarantor while another execution petition against the principal borrower remains pending. The Court clarified that the pendency of one execution petition against a judgment debtor is not a legal impediment to instituting another execution petition against the remaining judgment debtors, including guarantors.
The respondent No.1, M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited, had obtained an arbitral award dated 12.12.2018 directing the respondents, including the petitioner (guarantor) and other borrowers, to pay a sum of ₹54,24,277.50 with interest at 18% per annum from 27.06.2018 till realization. The decree holder first filed E.P.No.1329 of 2021 seeking execution against the property of one of the judgment debtors (Ms. A. Venkata Lakshmi Girija). During its pendency, the decree holder filed a second execution petition (E.P.No.1003 of 2024) against the petitioner’s property, which was registered on 05.09.2024 and made over to the Court of XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. The petitioner contended that the decree holder was required to first exhaust the remedy against the principal borrower and could not simultaneously proceed against the guarantor, and that Section 145 CPC prohibited such parallel proceedings.
The Bench observed that Section 145 CPC, which deals with enforcement of liability of a surety, enables execution of the decree against the surety personally or against the security furnished, but does not impose any condition that the decree holder must first exhaust remedies against the principal debtor. The petitioner, being a party to the arbitral proceedings and one of the judgment debtors under the award, could not claim any preferential exhaustion of remedies against the principal borrower. The Court noted that nothing on record indicated that the second execution petition was not maintainable. Since the execution petition had only been registered and the petitioner would have full opportunity to raise all valid objections before the executing court, no case for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution was made out.
The Civil Revision Petition was accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, were also closed.
Case Title: Potturi Venkata Rama Vanaja v. M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd. & 7 others
Case No.: Civil Revision Petition No.808 of 2026
Date of Judgment: 23 April 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Hon’ble Sri Justice Balaji Medamalli
Click HERE for full Judgment
Lawcutor 