IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2011 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 34314 of 2011(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- FASEELA NASARUDEEN, SURABHI, MANGARAM, PANDALAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S SRI.PRAVEEN THOMAS ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HO.PB NO.45, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, RECOVERY CELL. 2. THE PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., PANDALAM BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 3. SURENDRAN PILLAI, LOWER DIVISION CLERK, GOVT. HOSPITAL MAVELIKARA, RESIDING AT RETNALAYAM, THATHAMUNNA, NOORNADU. 4. GOPINATHAN K.R., HEAD CLERK, ARANMULA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, RESIDING AT MIDHILA, THANALLOOR, PANDALAM. 5. HARIS, UPPER DIVISIONAL CLERK, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, RESIDING AT MADEENA, MANGARAM, PANDALAM. 6. NASSURUDDEEN RAWTHER, OVERSEAR, PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION SECTION, ANGAMALI, RESIDING AT SURABHI, MANGARAM, PANDALAM. BY ADVOCATE SRI.T.P.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C)No.34314/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DT. 1.10.11 EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF LTHE LETTER NO.A2-16078/11/DMO(H)A DATED 25.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (H), ALAPPUZHA ATTACHING THE SALARY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.34314 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner availed a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the second respondent bank in the year 2003. Respondents 3 to 6 are guarantors to the said loan transaction. When the petitioner defaulted repayment of the loan the bank issued Ext.P1 notice dated 1.7.2011 demanding repayment within seven days, wherein it was stated that as on 30.6.2011 the sum of Rs.1,41,240/- was due towards principal and Rs.26,759/- was due towards interest. The petitioner did not even thereafter repay the loan and close the loan account. The bank thereupon took steps to proceed against the sureties and issued notices to their Controlling Officers under section 37(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The District Medical Officer of Health, Alappuzha, to whom the request was made, thereupon addressed the Medical Officer in charge, Public Health Centre, Thamarakulam, where the third respondent is employed, to recover from the salary of the third respondent the sum of Rs.4,000/- per month. In this writ petition the W.P(C).No.34314 of 2011 -:2:- petitioner challenges the steps taken by the creditor bank to realize the amount due from her by recovering it from the salary of sureties. The petitioner contends that though she had offered to pay the entire amount due in 15 equal monthly instalments., the said request was not accepted and instead the creditor bank is proceeding against the sureties. 2. In my opinion this writ petition is wholly misconceived and without any merit. The suretyship contract comes to the aid of the creditor when the principal debtor defaults repayment. The petitioner has admittedly defaulted repayment of the loan. The petitioner cannot, therefore, be heard to contend that the sureties should not be proceeded against, as otherwise there will be no meaning in furnishing sureties. It is to guarantee repayment of the loan that sureties have entered into suretyship agreements. At a point of time when the creditor bank needs the sureties, the petitioner who is admittedly a defaulter cannot be heard to contend that the sureties should not be proceeded against. The petitioner cannot in my opinion be said to be a person aggrieved by the steps taken by the second respondent to proceed against the sureties. If the petitioner is concerned about the welfare of W.P(C).No.34314 of 2011 -:3:- the sureties she ought to have repaid the amount in full instead of committing default. I therefore, find no grounds to entertain the writ petition or to grant the reliefs prayed for. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.34314 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 21st December, 2011