IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2007 / 18TH MAGHA 1928 WP(C).No. 33885 of 2006(H) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER ------------------ JOEMON, S/O.IYPE, AGED 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUNNAKAL HOUSE, KALLOORKADU, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.D.COMMERCIAL CENTRE, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE REVENUE RECOVERY SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, M.D.COMMERCIAL CENTRE, KOTTAYAM. 3. K.P.CHELLAPPAN, KULANGARA HOUSE, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, MANJAPILLIL HOUSE, MANAKADU P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. BINDU, W/O.RAVI, KULANGARA HOUSE, CHILAVU, ALAKODE, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.JOHN, ADDL.SC., KSFE LTD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/02/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 33885 OF 2006-H ----------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The petitioner was a surety for a loan availed of by the 3rd respondent. The properties belonging to the petitioner and the 4th respondent, who was another surety, were given as security for the said loan. Instead of proceeding against the said mortgaged properties, now revenue recovery steps are taken against the petitioner and his belongings. Therefore, this writ petition is filed, praying for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to proceed against the properties mortgaged by the petitioner and the 4th respondent. It is admitted that the petitioner has transferred the property mortgaged by him, in favour of the 5th respondent, who is none other than the daughter of the 3rd respondent. But, the said transfer will not affect the rights of respondents 1 and 2 to proceed against the said property, ignoring the said transfer. 2. The 1st respondent has filed a statement, in which it is submitted that when revenue recovery steps were taken against the said property, the 5th respondent, who is the transferee, filed a suit against the same. Though, the said suit is dismissed for default, she has moved for restoring it. Wpc 33885/2006 2 3. If there is no order of the competent court, prohibiting sale of the mortgaged property, respondents 1 and 2 shall proceed against the same, to recover the amount due from the 3rd respondent. The petitioner has no legal right to insist that proceedings should not be initiated against him, as long as he is a guarantor. So, there is nothing illegal with the proceedings against the petitioner. But, in fairness, the respondents 1 and 2 shall take effective steps to proceed against the mortgaged properties. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. 7th February, 2007. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Nm/