IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 37540 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- P.L.NAVIS, PEYOLI HOUSE, PADAMUGHAL, KAKKANADU, COCHIN - 30. BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA SRI.ISAAC GEORGE SRI.ANZAR BASHEER RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 11. 2. CANARA BANK, TRIPUNITHURA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN - 682 301. 3. SOPHY JOHN ERINJERI, ERINJERI HOUSE, CHUTTUPADU KARA, BEENA NAGAR, EDAPPALLY P.O., COCHIN - 24. 4. SUNILKUMAR, ERINJERI HOUSE, BEENA NAGAR, EDAPPALLY P.O., COCHIN - 24. 5. MRS.MARIES JOHN, D/O.LATE JOHN ERINJERRY, DO. DO. ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON, SC, CANARA BANK FOR R2 SRI.P.GOPINATHAMENON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 37540 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the principal debtor. Respondents 3 to 5 are the legal representatives of the mortgagor. By Ext.P4 judgment a learned Single Judge of this court turned down the request of the petitioner that recovery proceedings should not be proceeded with against the petitioner and the property mortgaged should be proceeded against. Taking note of the development in the form of the execution petition filed by the respondent Bank, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner should be permitted to furnish a Bank Guarantee and it should be encashed in case the execution proceedings against the mortgaged property will result in short fall. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Bank. Learned counsel for the Bank points out that actually in a decision of this court reported in Sheriff v. State of Kerala (2005(1) K.L.T. 873) the court took the view that it is not open to the Bank to proceed simultaneously with execution of the decree and recovery proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act. But he points out that in view of Ext.P4 judgment, it is not open to the petitioner to maintain this writ WPC.37540/2008. 2 petition as there is an inter parties judgment between the parties. 3. I see force in the contention of Sri. Gopinatha Menon as I feel that there is an inter parties judgment whether it is correct or incorrect in law, it is binding on the parties as long as the said judgment stands. I dismiss this writ petition. But this will be without prejudice to the right of the petitioner available in law. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb