IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 20636 of 2008(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.T.PAUL, S/O.THOMAS, KANNANAIKKAL HOUSE, PALLIKUNNU, VYTHIRI, WAYANAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SREEJITH. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, K.S.F.E., KALLAYI ROAD, KOZHIKODE. 2. MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., KALPETTA, WAYANAD. 3. C.C.KURIYAN, S/O.CHANDI, CHEMBUKKARA HOUSE, KANIYAMBATTA P.O. BY ADV. SRI. M.L. SAJEEVAN, SC, KSFE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.20636/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner was a surety to a chitty subscribed by one E.B. Manoharan. The principal debtor defaulted and has absconded. Ext.P2 is a judgment, rendered by this court in WP(c).No.38138/2007, filed by the 3rd respondent, when proceedings were initiated by the revenue recovery authorities, against the property purchased by him from the principal debtor. In that judgment, he was permitted to file a claim petition before the revenue recovery authorities in order to resist the proceedings against his properties. 2. Pursuant to that judgment, claim petition was filed, in which Ext.P3 order has been passed. In Ext.P3 the Tahsildar found that, at the time when the sale took place there were no arrears due and therefore there was no WP(c).No.20636/2008 2 reason to believe that that the sale in his favour will defeat the interest of the creditor. 3. Now that the principal debtor has absconded and as the petitioner is a surety, proceedings are initiated against the petitioner and that is sought to be challenged. 4. Having regard to the fact that the principal debtor is absconding and the surety is jointly and severally liable, I do not find any illegality in the recovery steps taken by respondents 1 and 2 to recover the dues from the petitioner, being a surety. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.20636/2008 3