Judgment : Sanjay Karol, Judge In this petition, filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, petitioner (plaintiff) has assailed order dated 20.9.2013, passed by learned District Judge, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in CMA No.25-S/14 of 2013, titled as Bal Krishan v. H.P. State Cooperative Bank and others, affirming the order dated 29.6.2013, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in CMA No.11-6 of 2013, titled Bal Kirshan v. H.P. State Cooperative Bank and others. 2. With respect to the amount of loan disbursed by respondent No.1-Bank in favour of private respondent, petitioner stood as a guarantor. With the default of payment of instalments of the loan amount, respondent- Bank started recovering the amount from the salary of the petitioner, who is an employee of the respondent-Bank. 3. It is urged that without exhausting the remedy of recovering the amount first from the principal borrower, no action can be taken against the guarantor. 4. This plea of petitioner stands rejected by the Courts below, in view of law laid down by the apex Court in U.P. State Sugar Corporation v. Sumae International Ltd., (1997) 1 SCC 568 ; and Industrial Investment Bank of India v. Biswanath Jhunjhunwala, (2009) 9 SCC 468. 5. In my considered view, the Courts below rightly dismissed the petitioner’s application, under the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking an order of restraint against the respondent-Bank, from recovering the amount of loan from his salary. Law with regard to recovery of the amount, so loaned by financial institution, is now evidently clear. Liability of the guarantor and the principal debtor is coextensive and not in the alternative. The loanee has to secure his right and interest, which in the present case was done by deducting the amount from the salary of present petitioner. 6. Hence, impugned orders cannot be said to be unreasonable, illegal and perverse, warranting interference by this Court. 7. For all the aforesaid reasons, present petition, devoid of merit, is dismissed. 8. Any observation made hereinabove shall have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the main case. Parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the Court below on 26.6.2014 9. For all the aforesaid reasons, present petition, devoid of merit, is dismissed. Petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.