IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2009 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34266 of 2009(C) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- A.SANKARANARAYANAN, S/O. ACHUTHAN NAIR, 'RAJEEVAM', TC 11/1082, HARI NAGAR, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.C.R.SIVAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, BANERJEE ROAD BRANCH, ERNAKULAM. 2. P.VELAYUDAN, S/O. KUMARAN, 144-A, PORTHERI HOUSE, SHORANUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 121. R1 BYADV. MR. R.S. KALKURA, SC, SYNDICATE BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 34266 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The second respondent had borrowed money from the first respondent bank. The petitioner was a surety to the loan transaction. When the loan was not repaid, the bank filed O.S. No.622 of 2007 in the Subordinate Judges Court, Ernakulam. The suit was decreed on 3.1.2009 on the first defendant confessing judgment. The petitioner/the second defendant in the suit was set ex parte. Exts.P1 and P2 are the copies of the judgment and decree therein. The court below had while decreeing the suit permitted the first defendant to pay the decree debt with interest in 15 equal monthly installments commending from March 2009. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that the second respondent has not complied with the decree and that he has not paid the installments in time as a result of which the petitioner is threatened with recovery steps. He contends that as the second respondent had undertaken to pay the decreed debt in installments, the Bank can recover the money only from the second respondent. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent to W.P.(C) No. 34266/09 2 take effective steps to recover the loan amount from the second respondent. 2. It is evident from Ext.P1 judgment that the petitioner is also equally liable to pay the decree debt. In fact, the liability of the petitioner and the second respondent is joint and several. The court below has however permitted the second respondent to pay the decree debt in installments. If such payment is not made, the bank is entitled to proceed against the petitioner and the second respondent in execution of the decree passed in O.S. No.622 of 2007. So long as the decree and judgment in O.S. No.622 of 2007 stands, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that he should not be proceeded against and that the second respondent alone should be proceeded against in execution of the decree. I therefore find no grounds to entertain this writ petition. The writ petitions fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps