IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23146 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- A.R.SOMANATHAN , AGED 50 YEARS, (LECTURER, PHYSICAL EDUCATION, MSM COLLEGE KAYAMKULAM) RESIDING AT PARAVANAM, MANGARAM, PANDALAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE SPECIAL DY.TAHSILDAR (RR), SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) THE KSFE,LTD KOLLAM 2. THE MANAGER THE KERALA KINANCIAL ETERPRISES LTD PANDALAM BRANCH, PANDALAM 3. LEKHA SURESH @ LEKHA B.PILLAI MATHILINTE VADAKKETHIL HOUSE THONNALLOR, PANDALAM 4. VIJAYAMMA, THEKUNILKUNNATHIL CHADAYANTTE AYYATHU PURATHOTTU HOUSE MANGARAM, PANDALAM. BY SRI.M.L.SAJEEV, SC, KSFE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 23146 OF 2008 E ==================== Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was a surety to a chitty conducted by Pandalam branch of the KSFE. It is stated that the 3rd respondent is the principal debtor and the 4th respondent is another surety. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although there was no recoverable amount available in his salary, still Rs.50,000/- has already been recovered from him and he is relying on Ext.P1 to prove this contention. According to him, the respondent Company has not taken any action against the 3rd respondent, the Principal debtor, although she has sufficient means to discharge the liability and is continuing recovery proceedings against him. 2. I heard the standing counsel who entered appearance on behalf of the 2nd respondent. 3. It is stated by the standing counsel that the recovery so far effected and mentioned in Ext.P1 were voluntary payments and not forceful. It is also stated that they have already taken WPC 23146/08 :2 : proceedings against the principal debtor and efforts are being made to realise the dues from her also. 4. It is thus evident from the submissions made by the standing counsel for the 2nd respondent that they have already initiated steps against the principal debtor. Ext.P1, either voluntary or otherwise, shows that substantial recovery has already been effected from the petitioner towards the total debt of more than Rs. 1 lakh. Since substantial amount has been paid by the petitioner and as the Company has already initiated action against the principal debtor, I feel atleast for the present, the company should explore the possibility of recovery from the principal debtor and continue proceedings against the petitioner only if their efforts to realise the dues from the principal debtor and other sureties is unsuccessful. I am taking this view purely on equitable considerations and this judgment shall not be understood as relieving the petitioner of his liability under the surety ship which he has undertaken. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp