IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 W.A..No. 389 of 2008 ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.3685/2008 DATED 31/01/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- SMT. MARY SEBASTIAN, W/O. SEBASTIAN, AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT PANAKKAL HOUSE, MARUVAKADU, CHELLANAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE K.THEKKEL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, COCHIN BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER. 2. DR. VARGHESE V.T., S/O. LATE DR.VARGHESE T.C., AGED 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT THEKKEKARA HOUSE, MOULANA AZAD ROAD, CHULLICKAL, KOCHI-682 005. 3. DR. ANTONY J., S/O. JACOB, AGED 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, PALLURUTHY, COCHIN-682 006. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.389 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 15th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This appeal is filed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.3685 of 2008 dated 31st January, 2008. 2. Appellant is the surety of respondent No.2. Second respondent is the principal borrower. Third respondent is another surety. The first respondent Bank had disbursed a loan to the second respondent. For proper payment of the loan amount that was received by the principal borrower, the appellant and the third respondent had affixed their signatures as sureties. 3. Since there is default by the principal borrower, the Bank is proceeding against the appellant. The appellant is of the view that the Bank initially has to proceed against the principal borrower and if for any reason they are not in a position to realise the amount due, then only they can proceed against the appellant and other surety. This submission of the appellant and her learned counsel, in our opinion, has no merit whatsoever. The liability of the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 is joint and several. The Bank can choose the person from whom they can recover the amount due. Since the appellant was one of the sureties, the Bank has proceeded against her. We cannot find fault with that action of the Bank. 4. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the writ petition at the threshold even without issuing notice to the respondents. Interference with the said order is not called for. Therefore, the writ appeal W.A.No.389 of 2008 2 requires to be rejected and it is rejected. However, liberty is reserved to the appellant, if she so desires, to approach the first respondent Bank for appropriate relief. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE vns