IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16099 of 2008(N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ MADHAVAN NAIR, S/O.NANUPILLAI AGED 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT VALIYA VEETIL PLAPPALLIL, IRUMPANANGADU, EZHUCONE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) SRI.P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOLLAM. 2. THE KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 3. THE SALE OFFICER (EZHUCONE BRANCH) KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KOLLAM. 4. M.BHARGAVI AMMA,VALIYA VEETIL PLAPPALLIL IRUMPANANGADU, EZHUCONE, KOLLAM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANU SIVARAMAN R2 BY ADV. SR. B. VINOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.16099 of 2008-N = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 3. Notice to the fourth respondent is dispensed with preserving her right to move this Court for review of this judgment, if aggrieved. 2.According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent, who is the widow of his younger brother was a surety for a facility availed by one Vijayachandran from the second respondent. It is also stated that one Padmakumari is also a surety for that transaction. An arbitration award was passed in a proceeding that commenced in 1998. Petitioner has now filed Ext.P1 which has WP(C)16099/2008 -: 2 :- been placed before the third respondent essentially claiming that the movables in the family house belonged to the petitioner and his surviving brother and did not belong to the late husband of the fourth respondent. Whatever be the quality of the claim made in Ext.P1, that application needs to be considered and disposed of without delay. That apart, it is quite surprising to note that the execution of the award passed in a proceeding commenced in 1998 is still not over. I would wonder as to what action has been taken against the movable and immovable assets or person of the principal debtor, the co- surety and also against any immovable property of the fourth respondent. This is a matter for the bank to pursue before the third respondent. Without expressing anything on merits, this writ petition is disposed of preserving the right of parties to the proceedings to contest the matter in accordance with law, however, directing that final decision shall be taken on Ext.P1 at the WP(C)16099/2008 -: 3 :- earliest, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/030608