IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 27588 of 2010(W) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- A.ABU, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, VELIMPARAMBIL HOUSE, ASRAMAM WARD, (NEW KALATH) AVALOOKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.M.P.SUNITHA BEEGUM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. SHAFEEK.A., S/O.H.ASRAF, KIZHAKKETHAIVALIKKAKOM, VATTAYAL WARD, THIRUVAMBADI P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 688 565. 2. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, AVALOOKUNNU BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 4. TAHSILDAR, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK. 5. VILLAGE OFFICERS, ARYAD SOUTH, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK. 6. VILLAGE OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA WEST, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK. R1 BY ADV. SMT.LAYA SIMON R2 BY ADVS. SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW, SC. SBT. R3 TO R6 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.27588 of 2010-W ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner stood as a surety with respect to a loan availed by the 1st respondent from the 2nd respondent Bank. Consequent to default committed in repayment, recovery steps were initiated by resorting to provisions contained under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Ext.P4 is the demand notice issued against the petitioner as well as the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner, since the Bank had already instituted a suit for realisation of the amount, the recovery steps now being pursued is unsustainable. It is contended that the simultaneous proceedings initiated is not sustainable. 2. It is the settled law by this time that filing of a suit for realisation of money will not prevent the respondent Bank from invoking remedy of recovery as provided under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, if the Bank is authorised to resort to such remedy as provided under Section 71 of the said Act in terms of the notification issued therein. Hence I am of the view that the contentions raised are unsustainable. W.P(C) No.27588 of 2010-W 2 3. However, it is noticed that, as a gesture of indulgence, a conditional interim order was issued by this Court on 13.9.2010 stipulating payment of a sum of Rs.50,000/- for granting stay against the recovery steps. The petitioner had failed to remit the said amount till date. 4. Under such circumstances, I do not find any merit to entertain this writ petition, any further. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioner or the 1st respondent will be at liberty to approach the 2nd respondent Bank either seeking settlement through one time payment by waiver of amounts to the possible extent, or seeking payment through instalment facility. 5. It is made clear that dismissal of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the 2nd respondent considering any such request. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab