IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20857 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.K.BEENA, SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, THRITHALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SMT.S.SIBHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE 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. MR.K.G.RADHAKRISHNAN, SC FOR THE BANK MR.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.20857 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the surety of a loan availed of by the 3rd respondent from the 2nd respondent. Default was committed by the principal debtor. Recovery proceedings have been initiated from the salary of the petitioner. Monthly recovery of Rs.3,500/- is effected and that is sought to be challenged in this writ petition claiming the benefit of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. In my view, the claim made is misconceived. First of all, the obligation of the petitioner is covered by an agreement executed and that is covered by Section 37 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act rendering the employer liable to effect recovery as provided in the agreement. Secondly, recovery on the strength of an agreement cannot be equated to an attachment as provided under Section 60 of the CPC. For these two reasons, I am not inclined to agree with the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg