JUDGMENT : VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. 1. The appellant is the 6th defendant in O.S. No. 22 of 2004 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, Krishna District. The 1st respondent herein is plaintiff and respondents 2 to 6 are defendants 1 to 5 in the said suit. 2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. 3. The brief averments in the plaint are as follows: The plaintiff is a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956 and running chit fund business. On 27-5-2001, the 1st defendant joined as a member of the chit and he was allotted Ticket No. 24. The monthly subscription is Rs.50,000/- and the total period of chit is 40 months and the total value is Rs.20,00,000/-. In an auction conducted on 15-7-2001, the 1st defendant became the highest bidder foregoing Rs.8,00,000/-. At the time of payment of prize amount, the defendants 2 to 6 stood as guarantors to the 1st defendant. All the defendants executed a pronote agreeing to repay the amount due by the 1st defendant. Subsequently, the 1st defendant paid in all Rs.10,50,000/- by way of 21 instalments and the 1st defendant committed default in payment of instalments from the 22nd instalment onwards and that the plaintiff issued a legal notice to all the defendants and all the defendants except the 5th defendant received notices and registered notice of the 5th defendant is returned un-served and that the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. 4. The defendants 1 to 5 are remained set ex-parte before the trial Court. 5. The 6th defendant filed a written statement. The brief averments in the written statement filed by the 6th defendant are as follows: The present suit was filed with the collusion of plaintiff and the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant has more properties and business premises for the satisfaction of alleged suit amount. Therefore, the plaintiff has to recover the suit claim from the 1st defendant. Due to the disputes in the field of 1st defendant, the present suit was got filed against all the defendants. The 6th defendant further pleaded that the other directors of the 1st defendant company are not made as parties to the suit and therefore, the suit has to be dismissed in limine. 6. Due to the disputes in the field of 1st defendant, the present suit was got filed against all the defendants. The 6th defendant further pleaded that the other directors of the 1st defendant company are not made as parties to the suit and therefore, the suit has to be dismissed in limine. 6. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs for Rs.10,83,527/- with interest, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/ 6th defendant in the suit, questioning the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 7. Heard Sri P.A. Seshu, learned counsel for the appellant/ 6th defendant and Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff. 8. Now, the points for determination are: 1. Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff? and 2. To what extent? 9. Point No. 1: Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff? The case of the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant joined as a subscriber in the plaintiff chit fund company under Chit series No. FT001DP and he was allotted Ticket No. 24, monthly subscription is Rs.50,000/-, total value of the chit is Rs.20,00,000/- and an auction was conducted by the plaintiff chit fund company on 15-7-2001, the 1st defendant participated in the said auction and declared as a prized subscriber. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendants 2 to 6 stood as guarantors for the 1st defendant in respect of the aforesaid chit transaction and all the defendants executed a pronote promising to repay the amount due with interest and the 6th defendant also executed a guarantee agreement along with the defendants 2 to 5. 10. To discharge its liability, the plaintiff relied on the evidence of P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 goes to show that the 1st defendant joined as a subscriber in a monthly chit of Rs.50,000/- and total value of the chit is Rs.20,00,000/-. The evidence of P.W.1 further goes to show that the 1st defendant participated in the auction on 15-7-2001 and declared as a prized subscriber and all the defendants executed a joint pronote and the defendants 2 to 6 executed an agreement of guarantee in favour of the plaintiff. The evidence of P.W.1 further goes to show that the 1st defendant participated in the auction on 15-7-2001 and declared as a prized subscriber and all the defendants executed a joint pronote and the defendants 2 to 6 executed an agreement of guarantee in favour of the plaintiff. To discharge its burden, the plaintiff exhibited agreement of chit as Ex.A-1, agreement of guarantee as Ex.A-4 and pronote as Ex.A-5. 11. The defendants 1 to 5 are remained set ex parte. The 6th defendant alone is contested in the suit proceeding before the trial Court. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the 6th defendant alone filed the present appeal. The execution of Ex.A-4 agreement of guarantee and so also the execution of Ex.A-5 pronote is not at all disputed by the 6th defendant. As stated supra, the evidence of P.W.1 is not challenged by the defendants 1 to 5, they are remained set ex parte. 12. It is severely contended by the learned counsel for appellant in the present appeal that the plaintiff is having liberty to collect the suit claim from the other defendants i.e. defendants 1 to 5 and the 1st defendant is the principal borrower and the total chit amount has to be collected from the 1st defendant. 13. In the case of State Bank of India vs. Messrs. Index port Registered, AIR 1992 SC 1740 the Apex Court held as follows: “13. In the present case before us the decree does not postpone the execution. The decree is simultaneous and it is jointly and severally against all the defendants including the guarantors. It is the right of the decree holder to proceed with it in a way he likes, Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act itself provides that the liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, unless it is otherwise provided by the contract.” 14. It is settled law that the liability of sureties is co-extensive along with the principal borrower. Ex.A-3 chit transaction is not at all disputed by any of the defendants in the present suit. The execution of Ex.A-4 agreement of guarantee is also not disputed by the defendants and Ex.A-5 pronote is also not disputed by the defendants. Therefore, certainly all the defendants are liable to pay the suit claim. 15. Ex.A-3 chit transaction is not at all disputed by any of the defendants in the present suit. The execution of Ex.A-4 agreement of guarantee is also not disputed by the defendants and Ex.A-5 pronote is also not disputed by the defendants. Therefore, certainly all the defendants are liable to pay the suit claim. 15. The learned counsel for appellant would contend that the other directors of the 1st defendant are not added as parties to the suit. As per the case of the plaintiff, the 1st defendant is a finance limited and the 2nd defendant is an executive director and he executed all the necessary documents in the plaintiff chit fund company. 16. In the case of United Bank of India vs. Naresh Kumar, 1996 (7) Supreme 301 the Apex Court held as follows: “10. It cannot be disputed that a company like the appellant can sue and be sued in its own name. Under Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure a pleading is required to be signed by the party and its pleader, if any. As a company is a juristic entity it is obvious that some person has to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company. Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, provides that in a suit by or against a corporation the Secretary or any Director or other Principal Officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case might sign and verify on behalf of the company. Reading Order 6 Rule 14 together with Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure it would appear that even in the absence of any formal letter of authority or power of attorney having been executed a person referred to in Rule 1 of Order 29 can, by virtue of the office which he holds, sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the corporation. In addition thereto and de hors Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as a company is a juristic entity, it can duly authorise any person to sign the plaint or the written statement or its behalf and this would be regarded as sufficient compliance with the provisions of Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A person may be expressly authorised to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company, for example by the Board of Directors passing a resolution to that effect or by a power of attorney being executed in favour of any individual. In absence thereof and in cases where pleadings have been signed by one of its officers a Corporation can ratify the said action of its officer in signing the pleadings. Such ratification can be express or implied. The Court can, on the basis of the evidence on record, and after taking all the circumstances of the case, specially with regard to the conduct of the trial, come to the conclusion that the corporation had ratified the act of signing of the pleading by its officer.” 17. The execution of Ex.A-3 agreement of chit is not at all disputed by the 1st defendant. It is also not in dispute that a legal notice was issued in the year 2003 to all the defendants prior to the filing of the suit. The appellant, 6th defendant herein, received the said legal notice on 13-11-2003. It is an admitted fact that no reply notice is given by the 6th defendant by denying his liability in the aforesaid chit transaction for execution of agreement of guarantee. As stated supra, the chit transaction is not at all disputed by any of the defendants. The execution of Ex.A-4 agreement of guarantee and the execution of Ex.A-5 pronote is also not at all disputed by the appellant herein and the same is also not disputed by the other defendants because the other defendants are remained set ex parte before the trial Court. Therefore, the appellant herein, 6th defendant in the suit proceeding, is having joint liability along with other defendants to discharge the suit claim to the plaintiff chit fund company. It is not the case of the appellant that the other defendants discharged the suit claim to the plaintiff chit fund company. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, there are no tenable grounds in the appeal filed by the appellant and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under law and it requires no interference. 19. Point No. 2: To what extent? 20. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, there are no tenable grounds in the appeal filed by the appellant and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under law and it requires no interference. 19. Point No. 2: To what extent? 20. Resultantly, the appeal suit is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree, dated 24-8-2007, in O.S. No. 22 of 2004 passed by the learned VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, Krishna District. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.