Honble SHARMA, J. – None on behalf of the respondents despite service. Application filed under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 was allowed by the court below vide order dated May 30, 1995. Against the said order present action for filing this miscellaneous appeal has been resorted to Laxmi Narain Meena (since deceased) was the guarantor of a loan amounting to Rs.1,86,000/- obtained by the respondent No. 2 Mangal Ram Meena for purchasing a diesel truck. It has been canvassed by Shri D.P. Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioners that the liability of Laxmi Narain Meena has been extinguished after his death and the Rajasthan Financial Corporation ought to have recovered the amount of loan from the borrower Mangal Ram as well as other guarantor Shri Charan Singhrespondent No. 3, but instead of doing so, the recovery proceedings have been drawn against the appellants who are heirs of deceased Laxmi Narain Meena. (2). After careful appraisal of the impugned order I am of the view that before passing the order for auctioning the properties of the appellants, it was incumbent upon the court below to make an enquiry as to whether the property owned by theappellants belongs to deceased Laxmi Narain Meena. I am also of the view that in the interest of justice the Rajasthan Financial Corporation ought to have proceeded against Mangal Ram Meena and Charan Singh and in case the loan is not recovered from their property, action for recovery of loan can be initiated against the appellants. The impugned order passed by the court below in my view is unsustainableand deserves to be set aside. (3). Consequently, I allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order. No costs.