In a recent Supreme Court case, leave to appeal was granted by the honourable court on the grounds that the liability of the guarantor co-exists with the liability of the principal debtor and, in case, where the entire amount could be recovered from the property of the principal debtor, whether the property of the guarantor can be put to auction. The Banking Court had excluded the property of the petitioner/guarantor from the auction stating that the property of the principal debtor will clear the banks decretal amount. The principal debtor made an appeal to the Banking Court to recall the above order and to include the petitioner/guarantors property in the auction but this was rejected by the Banking Court Judge. The court auctioneers again included the petitioner/guarantors property in the auction proceedings in a malafide action. The respondent in collusion with the auctioneers who were related to the principal debtor managed to keep the principal debtors property out of the auction on flimsy grounds. The main reason why bidders did not come at the auction of the principal debtors property was that a very high reserve price was kept whereas a completely opposite stand was taken vis--vis the property of the petitioner/guarantor. It is an established principal of law that where the entire amount can be recovered from the principal debtors property, the property of the guarantor cannot be put on auction. In this case, surprisingly, even the High Court of Lahore stated, ...in our view, the satisfaction of the decree against a customer of a bank should be through the sale/auctioning of the property of the customer/principal debtor primarily if thereafter the decree is not satisfied, the property of the guarantor be sold.... The case was then taken to the SC to get justice where petitioner/guarantor signed a compromise deal with the respondents. -M. YAHYA, Karachi, via e-mail, May 23.