IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2008 / 21ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22887 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. N.VISWAKARMAN, S/O.K.NANU ACHARI 54 YEARS, R/AT.AKSHAYA, KUDAVOOR PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. A.PREMAKUMAR, S/O.AYYAPPAN 48 YEARS, R/AT.ANANDA BHAVAN PUNNAMOODU, PALLICHAL PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR SRI.G.SURARSHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. MANAGER, KSFE LTD., PEROORKADA BRANCH THIRUFVANANTHAPURAM 2. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KSFE.LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE, SILVER JUBILEE BUILDING, STATUE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4. S.THANGAM, W/O.SUKUMARAN, R/AT.ZION, TC.19/481-2, MUDAVAN MUGAL POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 5. SUKUMARAN, R/AT.ZION, TC.19/481-2 MUDAVAN MUGAL,POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & 2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI M.L.SAJEEV R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI JOHNSON P. JOHN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 22887 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: AUGUST 12, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners are sureties to the 4th respondent who had availed of a chitty loan from the 1st respondent. According to the petitioners, 4th respondent's husband (5th respondent) is a retired employee of the KSRTC, to whom terminal benefits are due from his employer. It is stated that the 1st respondent should effect recovery from the amounts that are due to the 5th respondent from the KSRTC based on the undertaking that he has given. 2. As already noticed, the petitioners are sureties and the 5th respondent is not even a surety. Since the petitioners are under a contract agreement to discharge the liability that is due to the 1st respondent on the default committed by the 4th respondent, this Court will not be justified in directing that the 1st respondent should go after the 5th respondent or his employer and effect recovery in WP(C) 22887/08 2 satisfaction of the dues which is otherwise liable to be paid by the petitioners. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-