IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2009 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14808 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- DR.USHA RANI, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O.THANKAPPAN ACHARI, SIVAMANGALAM, KALLAMPALLY, SREEKARIAM P.O., ULLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.THIRUMALA P.K.MANI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. R.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR, L.D.CLERK, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, MALAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND NOW RESIDING AT THEMAVARATHALA EDAIKKODU, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OP. BANK LIMITED, KARAMANA BRANCH, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE TREASURY OFFICER, SUB TREASURY, VITHURA, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, THOLICODU, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN,SC,K.S.CO-OP BANK FOR R2 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 14808 OF 2009 (U) ===================== Dated this the 18th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was one of the sureties to the 1st respondent, who had availed of loan from the 2nd respondent Bank. Default was committed by the 1st respondent and steps were initiated by the 2nd respondent for recovering the amount due. According to the petitioner, without taking any action for effecting recovery from the principal debtor, the attempt of the 2nd respondent is to get the amount recovered totally from the petitioner, who is only a surety. It is with this complaint the writ petition is filed. 2. I heard the standing counsel, who entered appearance on behalf of the 2nd respondent. He points out that they had addressed to the 3rd respondent for effecting recovery from the salary of the 1st respondent and thereupon they were informed that the 1st respondent was transferred to Malayinkeezhu, where he is presently working. It is stated that since then, they have been taking steps for getting the amount recovered from the 1st respondent also, but however the same has been unsuccessful. 3. From the submissions thus made on behalf of the 2nd WPC 14808/09 :2 : respondent, it is therefore evident that the 2nd respondent has taken steps for effecting recovery from the salary of the 1st respondent also. If that be so, the complaint of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent has not taken any steps for effecting recovery from the salary of the 1st respondent is factually incorrect. Being a surety, the petitioner cannot get herself absolved of the liability unless the liability is discharged. She has no case that as at present the liability has been discharged. 4. Having regard to the fact that the 2nd respondent has taken earnest efforts for effecting recovery from the salary of 1st respondent also, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought for in this writ petition to direct that she be exonerated from the liability. Be that as it may, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the 2nd respondent shall pursue the matter with the authorities to ensure that the recovery is effected from the 1st respondent also. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp