IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21914 of 2011(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. UNNIKRISHNAN.K.C, S/O. CHAMI, PARPIDAM, ALANKODE, OLAVAKKODE.P.O, PALAKKAD -2. 2. TATHAKUTTY, W/O.K.C. UNNIKRISHNAN, PARPIDAM, ALANKODE, OLAVAKKODE.P.O, PALAKKAD -2. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., MAIN BRANCH, P.B.NO.14, SULTANPET, PALAKKAD-678001,REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER. 2. S. SELVARAJ, S/O. LATE SUBRAMANIAN, 32/772, GEETANJALI NIVAS, VADAKKANTHARA.P.O, PALAKKAD -678012. 3. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., BHADRATHA, P.B. NO. 510, MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR -680001, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. ADV. SRI.T.NAVEEN, SC, K.S.F.E. LTD. FOR R1,3 SRI.M.L.SAJEEV, SC, KSFE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.21914/11 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.11.2008 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3.12.2010 ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.12.2010 ISSUED TO RESPONDENT NO.2 TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1 BY THE PETITIONER NO.1. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CHITTY NO.78/08-15 (NCL 1705/08) ON 13.7.11 TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CHITTY NO.78/08-13 ON 13.7.11 TO THE PETITIONERS. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 21914 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 11th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are senior citizens. According to the petitioners, they stood as sureties to a chitty subscribed by the 2nd respondent. 2nd respondent committed default and recovery proceedings are now initiated against the petitioners. It is stated that the 2nd respondent is in possession of immovable properties and has subscribed several kuries under the 1st respondent. Counsel also submits that several bonds issued by LIC also have been produced by the 2nd respondent before the 1st respondent as security for the kury in question. In substance what the petitioner submits is that, if the 1st respondent directs recovery against the 2nd respondent from out of the securities already offered by him and the kuries subscribed by him, there is no necessity to initiate recovery proceedings against the petitioners. 2. In my view, this is entirely a matter for the 1st respondent to consider. Having regard to the above, I direct that on the production of a copy of the judgment, the aforesaid grievance of the petitioners will be duly considered by the 1st WPC No. 21914/11 :2 : respondent. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp