IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23231 of 2006(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.A.REMADEVI, D/O.DAMODARA MENON, AGED 47, KALLARAKKAL HOUSE, HOSPITAL ROAD, CHALAKKUDY VILLAGE, WORKING AS SUB POST MASTER, POTTA, CHALAKKUDY, TRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, THRISSUR MAIN BRANCH, THRISSOOR-20, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED ANGAMALY BRANCH, ANGAMALY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY O/O THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KSFE LIMITED P.B.NO.510, THRISSOOR-20. 4. THE POST MASTER, CHALAKKUDY POST OFFICE, CHALAKKUDY, PIN - 680 307. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC, K.S.F.E., LTD. FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROHIBITORY ORDER ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 20.7.2006 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROHIBIGORY ORDER ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 20.7.2006 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT DATED 23.8.2006 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(1) TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENTS. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W. P. C. NO. 23231 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears due to KSFE. Admittedly petitioner is the surety and therefore recovery can be made from her if the defaulter fails to pay arrears. Counsel for the KSFE submitted that defaulter is no more and therefore recovery has to be necessarily from the petitioner, who is a surety. This Court vide interim order dated 21.6.2007 directed to proceed against the property of the defaulter since defaulter is dead, recovery can be proceeded. However, if recovery is not possible it can be made from the surety namely the petitioner. The Creditor has a choice to proceed against the surety. I feel on equitable grounds, recovery should be first tried against the property of the defaulter and if recovery is not possible then recovery can be made from the petitioner. O.P. is accordingly disposed of directing the petitioner to furnish details of property of the defaulter and if such details are furnished along with a copy of this judgment within three months, the third respondent will 2 proceed for recovery by attachment and sale of property of the defaulter. However, if petitioner does not furnish details of property of the defaulter, or if the recovery could not be made by attachment and sale of defaulter's property then recovery can be made from the petitioner. In order to facilitate recovery stay granted by this Court will continue for another four months and thereafter recovery will be made from the petitioner if default continues. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3