Guarantor liability under a personal guarantee can be enforced directly without first suing the principal debtor.

A summary suit against a guarantor alone was maintainable where the personal guarantee made the guarantor liable on demand and as principal debtor vis-a -vis the creditor. Under Section 128 of the Contract Act, the surety's liability was coextensive with that of the principal debtor, so the creditor was not required to first sue or exhaust remedies against the borrower. The borrower's liability had also been repeatedly admitted in correspondence and balance sheets, and the guarantee was invoked within limitation. The objections that the plaint was unsigned by an authorised person and that the instrument was insufficiently stamped were treated as curable or untenable technical objections.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summary suit against the guarantor, without first suing the principal debtor, was maintainable and whether the guarantor was liable on the admitted personal guarantee.

Analysis: The guarantee expressly made the guarantor liable on demand, treated her as principal debtor vis-a -vis the plaintiff, and permitted enforcement without first proceeding against the borrower. The borrower's liability was repeatedly admitted in correspondence and balance sheets, and the guarantee was invoked within limitation. The objection based on want of authorization in signing the plaint was held to be a curable technical defect. The stamp objection was also rejected as the instrument was treated as duly stamped. In light of Section 128 of the Contract Act, the guarantor's liability was coextensive with that of the principal debtor, and the creditor was not required to exhaust remedies against the borrower before proceeding against the surety.

Conclusion: The suit against the guarantor alone was maintainable, the defence raised had no merit, and the decree was rightly made absolute against the defendant for the suit amount with interest.

---