IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 2707 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.20857/2009 Dated 05/08/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------ R.K.BEENA, SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, THRITHALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OFFICE OF TH DISTRICT REGISTRAR, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. S.JAYANTHIKUMARI TC 37/1705 THENGUTHARA VEEDU, WEST STREET FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.2707 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 5th day of January, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding recovery proceedings initiated against the appellant for recovery at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per month from her salary pursuant to an agreement executed in favour of the second respondent-Co- operative Bank. The borrower namely, third respondent admittedly committed default and therefore, recovery at the agreed rate is being made by attachment from appellant's salary. The learned Single Judge held that appellant after executing agreement agreeing for recovery from her salary at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per month has no right whatsoever to contest the recovery proceedings by resort to Section 60 of the C.P.C. We do not find any justification to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge because Section 37 of the Co- operative Societies Act specifically excludes other provisions of law including Section 60 of the C.P.C. for the purpose of recovery from 2 members of the Society based on agreement executed between such member and the society. Even though counsel for the appellant contended that appellant is not a member, we do not think such argument is also tenable because this court has in the decision in GODWIN VS. KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD. reported in 2005(1) KLT 625 took the stand that a Government servant cannot resist recovery from his salary made at the request of a Co-operative Society on the ground that he is not a member of the Society by virtue of Article 89(3) of the Financial Code. Besides the above, the agreement executed in favour of the second respondent is a joint agreement by the principal borrower as well as the surety who is the appellant herein. When the member is a party to the agreement with the debtor, we feel recovery against the surety based on the same agreement is permissible even if surety independently is not a member. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms