IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3104 of 2009(T) ------------------------- CMP.4605/2008 of C.J.M.,MANJERI .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- AYSHA UMMA, W/O.LATE KOYAKUTTY HAJI, AGED 80 YEARS, KUNNATHODY HOUSE, P.O.THACHINGANADAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679 325. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PERINTHALMANNA BRANCH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. 2. M/S.THACHINGANADAM TRADERS, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SHRI.T.HASSAN, HILL PRODUCE DEALERS, P.O.THACHINGANADAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 325. BY ADV.SMT.SAJI VARGHESE, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.3104 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner Aysha Umma challenges proceedings initiated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Those proceedings were initiated on the basis of action taken on default in repayment of certain loans availed by the second respondent. Even going by Ext.P1, there are seven co-obligants. One among them, T.Kunhi Muhammed had filed a securitisation application No.29/08 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, challenging the proceedings, under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. When there are more than one co-obligants, it is appropriate to insist that all co-obligants are made parties to a proceeding initiated by anyone or all of them. Otherwise, it will tend to result in a situation where different co-obligants will scout different jurisdictions and also they have different litigations before the same Tribunal which will be only creating a muddle in which the debtors will try to swim safe and the creditor will be WPC.3104/09 Page numbers unable to find out all the proceedings which are filed against one action. This Court has been insisting to implead all co- obligants in proceedings. Even in this matter, all parties who are debtors are not impleaded. Yet, when T.Kunhi Muhammed had challenged the SARFAESI proceedings in S.A.29/08, the benefit or defeat therein would accrue in favour or against all the co-obligants. It should be taken as an impermissible proposition to permit different actions being raised before different authorities. T.Kunhi Muhammed obtained a final order on 21.4.2008 when he submitted before the Tribunal that the securitisation application may be dismissed granting three months to discharge the liability. Thereafter, I am sure that the petitioner will not have a different cause of action to challenge those proceedings and should stand bound by that order of the DRT. As of now, proceedings are going on under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. If the petitioner has any contentions to state before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the dismissal of this writ petition will WPC.3104/09 Page numbers not stand in the way of such course of action. Otherwise, the writ petition is dismissed on merits. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.