IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2009 / 16TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 487 of 2009(G) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- K.CHANDRAN, HELPER GR.II, SENIOR SECTION ENGINEER'S OFFICE, DIESEL LOCO SHED/ SOUTHERN RAILWAY, ERNAKULAM JUNCTION, KOCHI-16, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. SYNDICATE BANK, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK,BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-18. 2. SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONAL OFFICER, RAILWAY DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI. 3. SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONAL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. V.SADASIVAM, O/O.SR.SECTION ENGINEER (DIESEL),DIESEL LOCO SHED, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TONDIARPET, CHENNAI-600 081. R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA, R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH,SC, RAILWAYS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.487 of 2009-G = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner and the fourth respondent have been issued Ext.P1 lawyer's notice recalling certain outstandings. The principal debtor is the fourth respondent. The mere issuance and receipt of an advocate's notice does not provide a cause of action for a writ petition. The apprehension of the petitioner is that without proceeding against the principal debtor, the fourth respondent, the bank may proceed to make recovery against the petitioner exclusively. It does not appear to be so because, the bank is well advised and has the support of able counsel to advise appropriately. Even though the co-obligants are responsible for the entire amounts, the creditors will make endeavour to effect recovery from the principal debtor unless it becomes impossible, WP(C)487/09 -: 2 :- though the mere inaction against the principal debtor would be insufficient to stop the recovery against the guarantors. The learned counsel for the bank, therefore, rightly states that there is no reason to assume that the bank would not proceed against the fourth respondent. Recording this submission, this writ petition is closed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/090109