IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2008 / 30TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 24806 of 2005(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.C.MATHEW, S/O.CHACKO, KIZHAKKEPALAKKAL HOUSE, KAPPATTUMALA POST, PERIYA AMSOM, ARAYAL DESOM, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.RAMADASAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R), MANANTHAVADY. 2. THE CANARA BANK, THALAPPUZHA BRANCH P.O.THALAPPUZHA, WAYANAD DISTRICT REP. BY ITS MANAGER AND PRINCIPAL OFFICER. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD. 4. EALIKUTTY, W/O.JOHN, KANAKUNNEL HOUSE, PERIYAD AMSOM, VARAYAL DESOM, POST VARAYAL, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 5. DEVASSIA, S/O.K.V.JOHN, RESIDING AT DO. 6. VARKEY, S/O.K.V.JOHN, RESIDING DO. 7. VINOD, S/O.K.V.JOHN, RESIDING AT DO. 8. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SMT.SMITHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1,3&8 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.24806/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN FORM NO.10 UNDER SECTION 34 OF RR ACT DATED 06/09/2002. P2 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.392/95 OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, SULTHANBATTERY DATED 08/04/1996. P3 : COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S.392/95 OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, SULTHANBATHERY DATED 08/04/96. P4 : COPY OF the PLAINT IN O.S.392/95 ON THE FILE OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, SULTHANBATHERY. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 24806 of 2005 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 21st day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner stood as surety for one Shri. K.V.John, who availed loan from 2nd respondent Bank. Since the borrower died, his wife and children are made as respondents 4 to 7 in this writ petition. According to petitioner, the loan was availed against mortgage of property by the defaulter and therefore recovery against him as surety should be initiated only after attachment and sale of the property mortgaged by the defaulter. Pursuant to the said contention, this Court vide interim order dated 22/08/2005 directed recovery by attachment and sale of the mortgaged property of the defaulter held by legal heirs. It is not known whether recovery is effected. In any case, since interim orders are not challenged in appeal, this writ petition is disposed making the interim order absolute. Consequently, recovery should be continued by attachment and sale of property, if liability is not settled by the defaulter or his legal heirs with the Bank. However, if still there is any outstanding, recovery can be made from petitioner, who is surety for the loan. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg