IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 24026 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SREEKUMAR, S/O.RAGHAVAN, PUSHPAVILASOM HOUSE, ULLANNUR, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (SPECIAL ARBITRATOR), DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., ULLANADU BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. RANJAN, S/O.KESAVAN, VALLISHARATHU VADAKETHIL, ULLANNUR, KULANADA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 5. REJI, S/O.RAJAPPAN, REJI BHAVAN, ULLANNUR, KULANADA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 6. ALIYAMMA GEORGE, HEADMISTRESS, MTLP SCHOOL, SAKTHIMANGALAM, THIRUVALLA. 7. THE PROJECT OFFICER, INTENSIVE CATTLE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, PATHANAMTHITTA. MR.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.24026 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 21st day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner says that he has been proceeded against by the 3rd respondent, on the basis that he is a surety to a loan availed of by the 5th respondent. According to the petitioner, to his knowledge, he did not sign any surety bond or render himself liable for the loan in any manner. Be that as it may, fact remains that now he has been shown as a surety, and is being proceeded against. 2. Apparently, because of the factual disputes involved, the Bank has filed ARC No.598/2008 before the 2nd respondent, and in that ARC, the petitioner has filed his written statement with a counter claim. Proceedings are pending, and what led the petitioner to file this writ petition at this stage is Ext.P6, a notice issued by the Bank proposing to effect recovery from his salary. The petitioner states that then he filed Ext.P7 complaint before the 1st respondent, which has been forwarded to the 2nd respondent, but, however, no orders have been passed in the matter. WP(C) No.24026/2009 -2- 3. I heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent also. 4. Having regard to the fact that ARC No.598/08 filed by the Bank in respect of the liability allegedly due from the petitioner and respondents 5 & 6, it is only appropriate that the disposal of the ARC is expedited, and further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P6 is deferred in the meanwhile. This is all the more so, having regard to the dispute raised by the petitioner that he is not a surety to the loan. Accordingly, I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:- That the 2nd respondent, before whom ARC No.598/08 is pending, shall expedite disposal of the ARC. Final orders in the ARC shall be passed with notice to parties as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from now. It is directed that in the meanwhile, proceedings pursuant to Ext.P6 shall be deferred. 5. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before respondents 2 & 3 for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg