IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2008 / 23RD SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22852 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.J.DOLFIN, SON OF K.L. JOSEPH, AGED 55 YEARS, CLERK, SOUTH INDIAN BANK, BRANCH ALAPPUZHA, RESIDING AT KUNNEL HOUSE, CHERTHALA CANAL WARD, AVALOOKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.SAJAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA. 2. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KSFE LTD., KUMARANASHAN SMARAKA MANDIRAM, COURT ROAD, ALAPPUZHA. 3. B.USHA,W/O K.RAMACHANDRAN, MANNANTHUMADATHIL, VALAMANGALAM,THURAVOOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. UNNIKRISHNAN R.,S/O K.RAMACHANDRAN, MANNANTHUMADATHIL,VALAMANGALAM, THURAVOOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. KRISHNA PRASAD R., ,S/O K.RAMACHANDRAN, MANNANTHUMADATHIL,VALAMANGALAM,THURAVOOR P.O ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 6. LAKSHMI PRIYA, D/O K.RAMACHANDRAN, MANNANTHUMADATHIL,VALAMANGALAM,THURAVOOR P.O ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, KSFE, LTD FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 22852 OF 2008 U = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14h day of August 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a surety to a loan availed of by one Shri. K. Ramachandran, a colleague of the petitioner. Default was committed and revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the sureties. The other surety to the loan, challenged the recovery against him before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 38114/03. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext. P2 judgment, directing that if the principal debtor is found to be having assets, from which recovery could be effected, the respondents will proceed against the principal debtor and against the surety only if it is found to be necessary later. In this writ petition the complaint of the petitioner is that despite Ext. P2 judgment and without taking any action against the principal debtor even now recovery is now directed against the petitioner being one of the sureties. It is with this complaint the writ petition is filed. W.P.(C) No. 22852 OF 2008 -2- 2. Ext. P2 judgment shows that having considered the contentions raised by the other surety, this Court directed that attempts should be made to recover the dues from the principal debtor. Since it is the specific case of the petitioner that such an endeavour was not made and that recovery is directed against the petitioner alone, I feel that this is a matter which needs to be considered by the respondents. 3. Therefore, I direct that it will be open to the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent, with a proper application claiming the relief that was granted to the other surety by Ext. P2 judgment of this Court and thereupon the 1st respondent shall consider the matter and explore the possibility to recover the amount from the principal debtor and continue the proceedings against the petitioner only if it is found to be necessary. It is directed that the representation shall be filed before 29.8.2008 in which case, until that is considered and orders passed, further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P4 for recovery against the petitioner will be kept in abeyance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-