IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 6TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29314 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MOHANACHANDRAN.C.R, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, PROCESS SERVER, DISTRICT COURT, KASARGOD, RESIDING AT CHANDRAMAGALATH HOUSE, ERANAD P.O., SEETHANGOLI, KASARGOD. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, IDUKKI BRANCH, PAINAVU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. VARGHESE KOTTEKAROTTU, BENCH CLERK, (HEAD CLERK), ADDL.DIST. & SESSIONS COURT ADHOC II, MUTTOM P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, (SALARY DISBURSING OFFICER OF 2ND RESPONDENT). ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN FOR R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.29314 OF 2010(L) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a surety to a loan availed of by the 2nd respondent. In this writ petition, what he complains is that leaving alone the principal debtor, the bank is proceeding to recover the defaulted amount from the petitioner. It is with this grievance that this writ petition is filed. 2. Standing counsel for the first respondent Bank has obtained instructions in the matter. According to the Standing Counsel the loan was availed of in July, 2005 and its period has expired in 2008. It is stated that when default was committed, proceedings have been initiated by the Bank against both the Principal debtor and the surety and he refers to Ext.P2 in support of this plea. 3. Even assuming that the case of the petitioner is factually correct, if the Bank has chosen to proceed against the surety, that cannot be faulted in law, as the liability of the surety is joint and several. Even apart from that, from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Bank, it is obvious that the bank is WPC.No.29314 /2010 :2 : proceeding against the principal debtor and the surety. 4. Therefore the allegation of the petitioner on the ground of discrimination is to be rejected. In that view of the matter I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/