IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2009 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16858 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.VIJAYAKUMAR, PRODUCTION TECHNICIAN GRADE IV, CARD NO.136, HINDUSTAN LATEX LIMITED, AKKULAM PLANT, SREEKARIYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE NEYYATTINKARA, CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., T.117, NEYYATTINKARA P.O. 2. THE SR.ASSISTANT MANAGER (P&HRD), HINDUSTAN LATWX LTD., AKKULAM PLANT, SREEKARYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. PREMAKUMARAN NAIR, PALLIMANGALAM, KEEZHAMMAKONAM, CHEKKAL P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. BHADRA DEVI M.L., W/O.PREMAKUMARAN NAIR, PALLIMANGALAM, KEEZHAMMAKONAM, CHEKKAL P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.16858 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was a surety for a loan availed of by the 3rd respondent. It is stated that the 3rd respondent committed default, and thereupon, the 1st respondent initiated recovery proceedings, and on receipt of communication from the 1st respondent, th 2nd respondent started recovery from the petitioner's salary. 2. Referring to Ext.P2, the petitioner submits that recovery has been effected from his salary during the last 48 months. It is stated that such recovery is impermissible under Section 60 of the CPC. Yet another contention that is raised is that the 4th respondent has mortgaged her properties being the wife of the principal debtor and one of the sureties. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent, the principal debtor, is still an employee of the 2nd respondent and no recovery proceedings has been initiated against him. 3. If, as stated by the petitioner, the amount has been recovered in excess of what is statutorily permissible, the petitioner WP(C) No.16858/2009 -2- should first raise this plea before the 2nd respondent and seek stoppage of further recovery. This has not been done. Therefore, at this stage, I do not think that this Court will be justified in interfering with the recovery. Be that as it may, if the 3rd respondent, the principal debtor, is also in service, there is no reason why respondents 1 & 2 should not pursue recovery from the 3rd respondent as well. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent Bank to pursue remedies against the 3rd respondent. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing that the petitioner will move respondents 1 & 2 for the aforesaid reliefs, in which event, the concerned respondent shall consider the matter, and take necessary steps in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg