IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1098 of 2010(J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ V.SELVARAJA, CC.18/1647, C.S.I.ROAD, PALLURUTHY, COCHIN-6. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, COCHIN-1. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. UCO BANK, FORT KOCHI BRANCH, REPRESENTED ITS SENIOR MANAGER, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI-1. 6. KANAKAMMAL, W/O.SELVARAJ, PROPRIETOR, ANU TEXTILES, CC 18/1647, CSI ROAD, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN R5 BY ADV. MR.GEORGE K.VARGHESE, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ----------------------------- W.P(C) No. 1098 of 2010-J ------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T The case projected in the Writ Petition is that the property owned by the petitioner is not liable to be proceeded against by the respondents particularly in respect of the dues to be cleared by the sixth respondent, under some loan transaction with the fifth respondent bank. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sixth respondent, though is the wife of the petitioner, had availed a loan in her own capacity, being the proprietrix of a textile shop; for which the petitioner had never stood as a guarantor, nor had he created any equitable mortgage or security over the property, owned, possessed and enjoyed by him. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits that that the bank has intended to proceed only against the properties owned, possessed and enjoyed by the sixth respondent ie. the wife of the petitioner and that the properties of the petitioner W.P(C) No. 1098 of 2010-J 2 are not intended to be proceeded against. The said submission is recorded and the Writ Petition is disposed of, making clear that Exts.P2 and P3 proceedings issued in the name of the sixth respondent could be proceeded against only in respect of the said respondent and not against the petitioner or his properties as referred to in the Writ Petition. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab