IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2157 of 2008(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- K.K.SACHIDANANDA VADHYAR, S/O.K.M.KRISHNA VADHYAR, RADHESHYAM, THAZHATHANGADY P.O., KOTTAYAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., BHADRATA, P.B.NO.510, MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER, KSFE LTD., KOTTAYAM BRANCH, KOTTAYAM. 3. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KSFE LTD., M.D.COMMERCIAL CENTRE, KOTTAYAM VILLAGE KOTTAYAM. 4. CORPORATION BANK LTD., THIRUVALLA BRANCH CROSS ROAD, THIRUVALLA REP. BY THE BRANCH MANAGER. 5. SUSEELA RANGARAJAN, W/O.RANGARAJAN, KARUKAYIL HOUSE, VELOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVATHUNGAL, KOTTAYAM. 6. K.K.RANGARAJAN, KARUKAYIL HOUSE, VELOOR VILLAGE, HIRUVATHUNGAL, KOTTAYAM. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN,SC,K.S.F.E. LTD R1 BY SRI.MATHEW G. VADAKKEL, GOVT. PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 2157 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 17th January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner stood as a surety to the 5th respondent who availed a chitty loan from the 2nd respondent in the year 2000. Sixth respondent is the husband of 5th respondent. Apparently, there was default in the repayment of the loan and prohibitory orders were issued for attaching the salary of the petitioner. Salary was attached and an amount of Rs.48,000/- was recovered in that regard. In the meanwhile, petitioner has filed a suit as O.S. 56/2006 before the Munsiff's Court, Kottayam, inter alia for a declaration that Exhibit P1 loan agreement to which he is also a party is null and void. The suit was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that steps are being taken to prefer an appeal against the decree. But in the while, the attachment of the petitioner's salary continues and hence the writ petition, inter alia, seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to recover the amount under Exhibit P1 from respondents 5 and 6 and also for a direction to W.P ( C) No. 2157 of 2008 2 respondents 1 to 4 to return the amount recovered from the petitioner. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Corporation. Learned standing counsel for the Corporation rightly points out that the petitioner had approached the Civil Court and was unsuccessful. Essentially, in this writ petition, the same reliefs have been sought for by the petitioner. In my view, since the petitioner had already approached the Civil Court, it is for him to prosecute his remedies. He is therefore, permitted to take steps in relation to the decree passed in O.S. 56 of 2006. The contentions of the petitioner as regards the invalidity of Exhibit P1 agreement are therefore not looked into in this writ petition and they are left open. The petitioner may, if so advised, approach the 2nd respondent with a representation giving the requisite details regarding the properties held by the respondents 5 and 6. If such a representation is received, the 2nd respondent shall cause necessary enquiry to be made in that regard and take steps against the principal debtor, in accordance with law. Such steps could be taken against the other surety, the 6th respondent also. W.P ( C) No. 2157 of 2008 3 It is upto respondents 2 and 3 to consider whether further attachment of the petitioner's salary should be kept in abeyance to enable appropriate steps to be taken against the principal debtor. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 2157 of 2008 4 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 ORDER 25th May, 2007