IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2008 / 23RD ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28251 of 2008(L) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ANNAMMA PAPPACHAN, VETTICKAL HOUSE, CUMBUMMETTU, KARUNAPURAM, KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.E.V.MOLY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DY. TAHSILDAR (R.R), NEDUMKANDOM, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE. 2. E.K. SABU, SUBIN TRADERS, CUMBUMMETTU, EDATHUPARAMBIL (H), KOLLAMPATTADA, KUMALI VILLAGE, PERUMEDU TALUK. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 28251 OF 2008 L -------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th October, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a surety who has executed a Bond for Rs.1 Lakh for the registration granted. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking to stop further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 against her and to issue a direction to give fresh assessment against the petitioner after giving credit to an amount of Rs.50,000/= paid by her out of Rs.1 Lakh (Bond). According to petitioner, she has paid Rs.50,000/=. Learned Government Pleader points out that actually the petitioner as also the person for whom the petitioner stood surety had filed Writ Petitions as W.P.(C). Nos. 9614/08 & 9528/08 respectively. The Writ Petition filed by petitioner, namely W.P.(C). No.9614/08 came to be disposed of as follows: “Petitioner is a guarantor for granting registration to the second respondent. Consequently, an amount of Rs.1 Lakh can be recovered from the petitioner under the bond WPC.28251/08 L 2 executed by the petitioner. However, petitioner's case is that second respondent obtained judgment from this Court in W.P.C.No.9528 of 2008 whereunder this Court granted instalment facility to the second respondent. Petitioner's information is that first instalment is due on or before 31.3.2008. If second respondent has obtained instalment facility from this Court and is remitting the amount, then there is no scope for recovery from the petitioner. In the circumstances, first respondent is directed to withhold recovery proceedings till 1.4.2008 and verify with the assessing officer whether second respondent is making payment in terms of the directions contained in the judgment above referred. If second respondent is making payment in terms of instalment facility granted by this Court, recovery proceedings against the petitioner will be recalled as and when full payments are made. However, if the second respondent commits default in payment of any instalment, then the amount covered by the bond will be recovered from the petitioner immediately thereafter.” 2. Petitioner is bound by the Judgment and apparently, if WPC.28251/08 L 3 Shri E.K. Sabu committed default in payment of any instalment, the entire amount was directed to be recovered from the amount payable by the petitioner as per the Bond. Therefore, the recovery made against the petitioner would not appear to be unjustified. Then, the learned counsel for petitioner prays that some time may be granted to pay off the amount. Learned Government Pleader points out that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.47,619/=. Having regard to all facts, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that recovery proceedings against the petitioner will be kept in abeyance on condition that the petitioner pays Rs.30,000/= (Rupees Thirty Thousand) before 30.10.2008 and pays off the balance on or before 15.11.2008. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge