Home  /  Indian Contract Act  /  Section 137

Section 137: Creditor's forbearance to sue does not discharge surety

Indian Contract Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1872
Section 136 All 266 Sections of Indian Contract Act Section 138

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 137

Section 137 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 enacts the fundamental rule that mere passive forbearance or delay on the part of a creditor in suing the principal debtor or enforcing remedies does not discharge the surety, absent an express contractual provision to the contrary. It establishes the critical legal distinction between passive inaction (which does not discharge) and a binding contractual promise to give time under Section 135 (which discharges).

  • Passive Inaction vs Binding Agreement: Mere delay, indulgence, or omission to file a recovery suit against the principal debtor does not affect the surety's liability, because the creditor has not legally tied his own hands or impaired the surety's right to pay and sue.
  • Effect of Limitation Expiring Against Debtor: Even if the creditor allows the debt to become time-barred against the principal debtor through mere forbearance, the surety is not discharged unless the underlying debt is extinguished by law or the guarantee provides otherwise.
  • Co-Extensive Enforceability: Reinforces Section 128; the creditor has the absolute right to proceed directly against the surety without first exhausting remedies against the principal debtor or realizing primary securities.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • State Bank of India v. Indexport (1992) 3 SCC 159: The Supreme Court held that the liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor; the creditor is not bound to exhaust remedies against the principal debtor or mortgage securities before proceeding against the guarantor, and passive forbearance does not discharge the surety under Section 137.
  • Industrial Finance Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Cannanore Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. (2002) 5 SCC 54: The Supreme Court held that mere inaction or failure of the creditor to initiate recovery proceedings or realize hypothecated assets does not discharge the guarantor under Section 137, which requires an active, positive act impairing the surety's rights under Section 139.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

In DRT or civil litigation, when a guarantor pleads that the bank sat idle, delayed filing suit, or allowed hypothecated goods to deteriorate through passive inaction, cite Section 137 alongside Indexport and Cannanore Spinning to strike down the defense. Remind the court that the guarantor had the legal right to pay the debt and enforce the securities himself.

Section 136 All 266 Sections of Indian Contract Act Section 138