IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21880 of 2009(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. S.T.ROY, AGED 31 YEARS S/O.S.THEVAMANI, ANANYA BHAVAN,WALLARDIE, VANDIPERIYAR, IDUKKI. 2. ABBAS S/O.MOIDEEN PICHA, HASEENA MANZIL, KUMILY, IDUKKI. 3. P.PAUL S/O.PALAYYA, MARY HOUSE, DYMUKKU,VANDIPERIYAR, IDUKKI. BY ADV. MR.C.S.MANILAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISE, REP BY THE BRANCH MANAGER KATTAPPANA BRANCH, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR REVENUE RECOVERY,K.S.F.E. LTD, M.D COMMERCIAL CENTRE, KOTTAYAM. 3. S.KUMARAN TEACHER, GOVERNMENT L.P.S.KARIMKULAM K.CHAPPATH PO, IDUKKI. 4. HEAD MASTER GOVERNMENT U.P.S. VANDIPERIYAR, IDUKKI. 5. HEAD MASTER GOVERNMENT L.P.S, CHOTTUPURA, IDUKKI. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.NAVEEN, SC, K.S.F.E. LTD. R1 BY R2 ADV.MR.ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, K.S.F.E. LTD. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.21880/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC. NO.25391/2003 DTD. 7.8.03. P2:- COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF MONTHLY EMI REMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 5.5.09. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.21880 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Petitioners are sureties with respect to a loan transaction availed by the 3rd respondent from the 1st respondent. Consequent to default committed by 3rd respondent in repayment, recovery steps were initiated against the petitioners by deduction of amounts from their salary. The petitioners have approached this court on an earlier occasion and in Ext.P1 judgment direction was issued to respondents 1 and 2 to take effective steps to proceed against the immovable property belonging to the 3rd respondent, who is the borrower. It is made clear that only if full payment could not be recovered from the property of the 3rd respondent, proceedings can be initiated against the petitioners. In Ext.P1 judgment, recovery of salary of the petitioners was directed to be kept in abeyance for a period of two months. Grievance of the petitioners at present is that, without taking effective steps for sale of the property belonging to the 3rd respondent, respondents 1 and 2 are proceeding with recovery of the amounts from the salary of the petitioners. Serious allegation of non-compliance of directions W.P.(C).21880/09-D 2 contained in Ext.P1 judgment is raised in this writ petition. 2. In the additional statement filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 it is mentioned that consequent to Ext.P1 judgment steps for sale of the property belonging to the 3rd respondent was initiated. But the same could not be continued since a third party had obtained an interim injunction order from the civil court against such proceedings, based on a claim that the property in question was purchased by him. But in the statement it is conceded that the suit was ultimately dismissed and further it was confirmed in appeal. The dismissal of the suit was on 29.10.2008. But it is not evident from the statement as to what steps have been resorted to by respondents 1 and 2 after the dismissal of the suit. It is mentioned that a total amount of Rs.1,38,495/- was already recovered from the salary of the principal debtor, the 3rd respondent herein, and the balance outstanding as on 31.8.2009 is Rs.1,15,465/-. 3. The petitioners being guarantors with respect to loan transaction are jointly and severally liable along with 3rd respondent to pay off the liability. Therefore I am of the opinion that they could not effectively resist steps initiated for realisation of amounts from their salary. From the facts stated by the respondents total non-compliance of the directions in Ext.P1 judgment could not be attributed against respondents 1 and 2. W.P.(C).21880/09-D 3 At the same time details are not forthcoming as to what steps they have adopted for sale of property of the 3rd respondent, after dismissal of the suit on 29.10.2008. If no effective steps were taken after dismissal of the suit, it is necessary to direct the respondents to ensure compliance of Ext.P1 judgment. 4. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to take effective steps and all earnest efforts for sale of the immovable property belonging to the 3rd respondent, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In view of the direction contained in Ext.P1 judgment, realisation of amounts through recovery from the salary of the petitioners shall be kept in abeyance for a further period of three months from today. 5. If amounts are not recovered as directed above, it is made clear that the petitioners can also be proceeded against for recovery of the balance outstanding. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb