IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 9484 of 2011(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SOMAN M., S/O.MADHAVAN, ASRAMATHIL HOUSE, MAHADEVIKADU P.O., KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. K.RAVEENDRAN, S/O.RAMAKRISHNA PANICKER, KADAKKAL PUTHENPURAYIL, PUTHUKUDAM, MAHADEVIKADU, KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), HARIPAD-690 514. 4. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HARIPAD, REP. BY THE BRANCH MANAGER-690 514. 5. SURENDRAN K., SURENDRA BHAVANAM, MAIN ROAD, MAHADEVIKADU, KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 555. BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN FOR R4 SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 9484 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T Petitioners are guarantors with respect to loan availed by the 5th respondent from the 4th respondent Bank. Consequent to default committed in repayment, revenue recovery steps were initiated at the behest of the 4th respondent. Through Exts.P2 and P3 series notices, demands were raised against the petitioners to make payment of the amounts due. 2. Contention of the petitioners is that, inspite of availability of immovable property owned by the 5th respondent, respondents 1 to 4 are not taking any effective steps to proceed against such property. 3. The liability of the petitioners as guarantors is co- extensive with that of the principal debtor (5th respondent). Under such circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to raise any legally tenable contention refuting the liability. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the recovery 2 W.P.(C).No. 9484 of 2011 steps impugned. However, as a gesture of indulgence, an interim stay was granted directing the petitioners to remit a sum of Rs.40,000/- each, within one month from 25.3.2011. 4. It is conceded that the petitioners have not deposited the amounts till date. Under such circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition any further. However, it is made clear that respondents 1 to 4 will be at liberty to take effective steps against the 5th respondent as well as property if any belonging to him available, especially taking note of the representation made by the petitioners as per Ext.P4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed subject to the above observations. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/