JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant petition, is, directed against the affirmative orders rendered by the learned executing Court, on 31.07.2017, upon, the decree holder's application, cast, under the provisions of Order 1, Rule, 10 CPC, claiming therein, a relief for deletion, of, the name of JD No.1/respondent No.2 herein, from the array, of, judgment debtors. 2. One Smt. Sumeet Dhilon, is, the principal borrower, and, she suffered a money decree, decree whereof, was, put to execution, before, the learned executing court. The petitioner herein, is, the guarantor of the loan, borrowed by the principal loanee, from, the decree holder. A perusal, of, the apt record, reveals, that the principal borrower, JD No.1, despite, repeated attempts, to personally serve her, yet remained unserved. However, the petitioner herein was personally served, and, through his counsel, had recorded his appearance, on 21.1.2017, before, the learned executing Court. An incisive perusal, of, the zimni orders, made, subsequent to 21.1.2017, upto, 21.07.2017, make, vivid disclosure(s), of though, the learned executing court, rather making orders, for, effectuation of service, upon, the unserved JD No.1, though affixation, yet for want of the decree holder hence purveying her correct address, hence, service, through affixation upon JD No.1, remaining unefectuated. Despite the counsel for the decree holder, not, purveying to the learned executing Court, the correct address of JD No.1, for, hence hers, being served through affixation, yet on 31.07.2017, an affirmative order, was pronounced, upon, the decree holder's application cast, under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10, of the CPC, for, hence, the name of JD No.1, the principal borrower, being deleted, from, the array of co-respondents/JDs. The orders made, on, the apposite application, were, rendered on the very day, when it was filed therebefore. 3. The learned counsel appearing, for the respondent/decree holder, submits, with much vigour, that the orders rendered subsequent thereto, for the apt coercive processes, being initiated, for hence realizing from the assets, of the petitioner herein/JD No.2, the decretal amount, rather not warranting interference, given, the provisions embodied, in Section 47 of the CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, omitting, to, on their circumspect reading, carry any explicit mandate therein, of any bestowment being made, upon, the JD to rear objections, before, the learned executing Court. Provisions of Section 47 of the CPC read as under:- “47. Provisions of Section 47 of the CPC read as under:- “47. Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree.- (1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. (2) omitted by Act 104 of 1976. effective from 1-2-1977 (3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the court Explanation I: For the purposes of this section, a plaintiff whose Suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are parties to the suit. Explanation II: (a) For the purposes of this section, a purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree shall be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the degree is passed; and (b) All questions relating to the delivery of possession of such property to such purchaser or his representative shall be deemed to be questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of this section.” However, the aforesaid submission, is, misplaced, AND, arises, from, a misreading, of, the provisions borne in Section 47 of the CPC, (i) especially, of, the words “all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit” hence occurring therein, rather imperatively carrying, no connotation, other than the one , (ii) qua the JDs, being empowered, to resist the satisfactory discharge, of the decree, from their respective assets, by canvassing grounds, qua the decree, being unexecutable vis-a-vis them/him, or their respective assets, (iii) the apt unexecutability(ies) thereof, arising, from the decree being void or nonest, hence, reiteratedly unenforceable against their assets. 4. 4. Nowat, the learned counsel appearing, for the decree holder submits, that assumingly, the aforesaid connotation is tenably ascribable, by this Court, to the provisions, borne in Section 47 of the CPC, (i) thereupon with JD No.2, one Tara Dutt Sharma, not since, his being validly served, and, upto the apt coercive processes being issued, for hence the decretal amount being satisfied from his assets, hence, raising objections, against, apt executability, and, enforceability, vis-a-vis, his assets, (ii) thereupon, his acquiescing, to the realization of the decretal sum, from, his assets. Again the aforesaid submission is amenable to founder, (iii) given the trite factum, of the learned counsel, for the decree holder, remaining grossly unaware besides oblivious, to the trite factum, of the unserved JD/principal borrower, one Smt. Sumeet Dhillon, being unserved also his remaining unaware, of, the factum of one Tara Dutt |Sharma, JD No.2/petitioner herein, being merely, the guarantor to the apposite borrowings made by her, from, the decree holder. The further effect, of his misawakenings besides unawakenings qua the further therefrom ensuing trite tenet, of, co-extensibility of liability of the guarantor, along with, the principal borrower or the principal JD, qua, the borrowings made, by the latter from the lender concerned, rather also thereupon being squarely attracted vis-a-vis the apt co-JD, and, the apt guarantor, impleaded hereat, as co-JD No.2. (iv) whereas, for ensuring all apt attraction(s) thereof, vis-a-vis him, besides for ensuring qua the principle of equity or justice, and, of fair play, rather, hence begetting their apt fullest compliance , it being also imperative, for, the executing courts (v) to initially ensure, that the decretal sums, being initially realizable, from, the assets of the principal judgment debtor or the principal borrower, and, on evident failure thereof, it being open for the executing court, to, make orders, for apt coercive realization(s), from, the assets, of the guarantor or co-JD. However, the aforesaid principles of equity or justice and fair play, (vi) ingraining the trite canon(s) of co-extensibility, of liability, of, the guarantor, along with, the principal borrower or principal JD, appears to be given a complete go-bye, (vii) and, the learned executing Court, rather, has made short shrift, of, the afore trite principles, by its, after ordering for deletion, of the principal JD, on 31.07.2017, upon an application, in the apt regard, being made, by the decree holder, on the same day, its thereafter rather proceeding, to realize the decretal sums, from, the assets, of, JD No.2. Contrarily, prior, to, the rendering, of, the impugned order, it was incumbent, upon, the learned executing court, to, insist upon the DH, qua the latter making a clear display of it, making efforts, to ensure qua its orders directing, effectuation, of, service through affixation upon JD No.1, being complied with, and, upon its apt efforts failing, for, any dereliction on the part of the DH, to purvey the correct address of the principal JD, thereupon, it was enjoined to pronounce a direction, upon, DH, to, make a scribed motion, for the unserved principal JD, being served through publication of a notice in a daily newspaper. Consequently, reiteratedly before pronouncing, the impugned order, it was incumbent upon the learned executing Court, to insist upon the decree holder, to ensure qua service being effectuated, upon, principal JD, through, ordinary mode or through affixation , and, on failure thereof, it was enjoined, to, ensure that service stood effectuated, upon, the principal JD through publication, of, a notice in a newspaper, holding circulation, in the area, whereat the principal JD, was, last residing. The aforesaid concerted efforts, would also made a display, of the executing court, ensuring, the presence of the principal JD, and, also its thereupon ascertaining, qua the latter JD, holding any assets, for hence the decretal amount, being realized therefrom, and, in its thereafter proceeding, to make coercive realization, of the decreetal amount, from, the assets held by the guarantor/JD No.2, would thereupon, rather hold an aura of validity. Even the aforesaid endeavours, rather remained omitted, to be exercised by the learned executing court, rather it, in a slip shod or in a hurried manner, without application of mind, and, without adhering, to, the tenets of justices and equity, inhering, the principle of coextensibility of liability, of guarantor, vis-a-vis, the principal JD, (i) canons whereof, are comprised in the executing court being assured, of assets of the principal JD, being insufficient or not in existence, or wanting in adequacy, for, hence meteing the fullest satisfaction of the decree, put to execution, (ii) rather the assets of co-JD being available, for realization of the decretal amount. Contrarily, visible infraction(s) of the aforesaid principles, constrains this Court, to conclude, that the order impugned before this Court, hence suffering from, grave vices of illegality, and, warrants its being set aside. More so when the counsel, for, the decree holder, states at the bar, of his holding no objection in case the principal JD, is ordered to be impleaded as co-JD, along with the petitioner herein, as also, when obviously JD No.1 one Smt. Sumeet Dhillon stands served, before this Court, and, she represented by her counsel, hence has tacitly, made a submission, of may be hers, holding assets, qua hence the decretal sum being realised therefrom. 5. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is allowed, and, the impugned order rendered, on 31.07.2017 by the learned executing Court, upon an application cast, before it, under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, is set aside. The parties are directed to appear, before, the learned trial Court on 22nd June, 2018. No order as to costs. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.