As per case facts, a trading company obtained a cash-credit facility from a cooperative bank, with two respondents acting as sureties. The company subsequently withdrew amounts significantly exceeding the sanctioned ... limit. Following default, the bank sought recovery. While the initial forum decreed recovery against the principal debtor for the full amount, it discharged the sureties. An appeal to the Tribunal resulted in the sureties being held liable for the originally sanctioned amount. The sureties then successfully challenged this at the High Court, which ruled they were either liable for the entire sum or none, discharging them. The bank appealed to the Supreme Court. The question arose whether respondents were entitled to benefit under Section 139 of the Act or liable as sureties under Section 133 of the Act, particularly concerning the bifurcation of liability. Finally, the Supreme Court held that Section 133 of the Act applied, discharging the sureties only for transactions subsequent to the variance, meaning the overdrawn amounts. The High Court's ruling against bifurcating liability was erroneous. Sureties are liable for the originally sanctioned amount with applicable interest, as their consent was not obtained for the excess withdrawals, but their eventual remedy against the principal debtor was not impaired for Section 139 to apply.