IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 RFA.NO. 740 OF 2009() {I.A.NO.320/88 IN OS.19/1986 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, ATTINGAL} .................... APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: 1. M/S.BOY'S BAKERS, AN INDUSTRIAL UNIT AT MAIDANAM VARKALA, REPRESENTED BY K.GOPINATHAN, PROPRIETOR. 2. K.GOPINATHAN, S/O.KESAVAN, PROP. BOY'S BAKERS, VILAYIL VEEDU, MUNDAYIL, VARKALA. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: 1. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, VARKALA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER AND PRINCIPAL OFFICE, VARKALA. 2. D.K.UMMER SADIQ, NASEEM MANZIL, KILIKOLLOOR, QUILON - 4. 3. N.SUGANTHI, W/O. K. GOPINATHAN, VALAYIL VEEDU, MUNDAYIL, VARKALA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.MANU THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------- R.F.A.No.740 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. This appeal by defendants 1 and 2 is against the final decree passed in a suit for recovery of money due under a mortgage. That suit was filed by a bank, which had made advances in favour of the 1st defendant, a proprietary concern. The suit was filed on default in repayment of the amount. A preliminary decree was passed ex parte. Six month's time was granted for payment of the amount. That ex parte preliminary decree stands. No amount was paid. Hence the final decree proceedings were initiated and final decree was passed on 13.3.1997. This appeal is against that final decree. 2. Before us, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the transaction was covered by a credit guarantee issued by the Credit Guarantee Corporation and therefore, the bank ought to have taken the benefit of that guarantee. It is attempted to be pointed out that the bank had invoked the guarantee and the Credit Guarantee Corporation had brought the transaction under one of its schemes. R.F.A.No.740 of 2009 :: 2 :: 3. First of all, we may note that no plea at all in this regard was raised in the court of first instance. Not only that, the guarantee given by a credit guarantee institution is only in favour of a banking institution to the extent of a loan that it had given. This is on condition that the creditor availing the guarantee benefit, will proceed against the debtor for recovery of the amount and pay it back to the Corporation. Therefore, the mere fact that there was a credit guarantee does not wipe out the liability of the appellants/defendants. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN) JUDGE Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge.