IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 17881 of 2008(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.P.KRISHNA PILLAI, S/O.PADMANABHAN PILLAI, AGED 69, SAJU SADANAM, ARAKKANNOOR MURI, ELAMADU VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. K.RAJENDRAN PILLAI, S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 47, PROPRIETOR, LUCKY TILES, KUREEPUZHA, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.B.VINOD,SC,KOLLAM DIST.CO.OP.BANK FOR R1. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).17881 of 2008-D & I.A.10929/2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner stood as a guarantor for a facility availed by the second respondent from the first respondent co-operative bank. His complaint was that the assets of the second respondent are not being proceeded against and the bank has proceeded only against the petitioner, the guarantor. When this matter came up on 16-6-2008, the learned counsel for the first respondent bank stated that the reliefs sought for cannot be granted since the properties of the second respondent are already involved in different litigations. Now the petitioner has filed I.A.10929/2008 seeking to implead one M.A.Varghese and one Thulaseedharan Pillai on the WP(C)17881/2008 -: 2 :- premise that those persons had obtained decrees against the second respondent before civil courts and had executed those decrees as against the properties of the second respondent. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the first respondent that the bank had filed certain claim petitions before the civil courts during those execution proceedings initiated by M.A.Varghese and Thulaseedharan Pillai, however, ultimately, suffered an adverse order on the ground that the claim petitions are not bonafide. However, I may notice that what would have been attached and sold in execution in those proceedings was only the equity of redemption left with the second respondent. That is a matter to be considered only in an appeal of the bank on that issue, which appeal is stated to have been filed before this Court. 2.However, the aforesaid scenario will show that there is absolutely no legal foundation to seek a relief in any manner restraining the bank from proceeding against the petitioner-guarantor or his assets which have been offered as security. WP(C)17881/2008 -: 3 :- For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. I.A. will stand dismissed without prejudice to contentions of parties. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/260808