IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 7TH ASWINA 1930 WA.No. 1459 of 2008 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.16307/2008 DATED 02/06/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ S.SONY, S/O SANKUNNAI, AGED 45 YEARS, KANNARKATTU, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, MANNANCHERY BRANCH. 2. P.A. SAJEEB, S/O ABDUL ASSIS, THARRUPURAKKAL HOUSE, ARYAD NORTH. R1 BY STANDING COUNSEL. SRI.V.G.ARUN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1459 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 29th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. The second respondent is the principal borrower. Petitioner was the guarantor. The second respondent had availed a loan from the first respondent Co-operative Bank. The principal borrower has defaulted in paying the amounts due to the Bank. The Bank after obtaining appropriate decree/award, has proceeded to recover the amount due by proceeding first against the guarantor. It is this action of the first respondent Bank that was called in question by the guarantor before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.16307 of 2008. (2) The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition by his orders dated 2nd June, 2008. (3) The primary contention of the guarantor before this Court is that the second respondent has got enough means and, therefore, the first respondent Bank has to proceed first against the principal borrower and if they could not realise the amount due to them from the second respondent, then only they could proceed against the guarantor. (4) This submission, of the learned counsel for the appellant, in our opinion, has no merit whatsoever. It is for the decree W.A.No.1459 of 2008 2 holder to execute the decree in the way which he wants. It could be either against the principal borrower or against the guarantor. In these type of matters the relief sought for by the appellant can never be granted by any Court. Therefore, the learned Judge was wholly justified in rejecting the writ petition in limine. (5) Therefore, while agreeing with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. (6) Consequently, I.A.No.624 of 2008 also stands rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns