IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2010 / 29TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25877 of 2010(H) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ RASIYA MOOSA, AGED 28 YEARS, W/O.K.M.MOOSA, KERANTAKATH HOUSE, THIRUVATHRA P.O.,CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN-680 506. BY ADVS. SRI.H.B.SHENOY, SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY, SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY, SRI.ABU MATHEW, SRI.SOBHAN GEORGE. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESETNED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER (RCPC)REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, BHARATHAKSHEMAM BUILDING, ST.THOMAS COLLEGE ROAD, THRISSUR - 680 005. 2. A.C.M.SHAUKATH, ANDATHODU CHALLIL HOUSE, BABY ROAD, THIRUVATHRA P.O.,CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 506. 3. SABEENA, W/O.A.C.M.SHAUKATH, ANADATHODU CHALLIL HOUSE ,BABY ROAD, THIRUVATHRA P.O.,CHAVAKKAD,THRISSUR DISTRICT -680 506. 4. FATHIMA ALIAS PATHUMMA, W/O.A.C.MUHAMMED ALI, ANDATHODU CHALLIL HOUSE, BABY ROAD, THIRUVATHRA P.O.,CHAVAKKAD,THRISSUR DISTRICT -680 506. 5. M.M.AMEER, S/O.A.C.MUHAMMED ALI, ANDATHODU CHALLIL HOUSE,BABY ROAD, THIRUVATHRA P.O.,CHAVAKKAD,THRISSUR DISTRICT -680 506. 6. A.C.SUBAIR, S/O.A.C.MUHAMMED ALI, ANDATHODU CHALLIL HOUSE,BABY ROAD, THIRUVATHRA P.O.,CHAVAKKAD,THRISSUR DISTRICT -680 506. BY SENIOR ADV. SRI. K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SC BY ADV. SRI.N. RAJAGOPALAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 25877 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is the wife of the guarantor is before this Court, stated as being aggrieved of the course pursued by the respondent Bank in proceeding against the property over which security interest was created in respect of a loan extended to the 2nd respondent (the principal borrower) without proceeding against the said person or the other guarantors; inspite of the fact that the borrower had already approached this Court by filing WP(C) 30483/2009 culminating in Ext.P5 judgment, whereby appropriate relief was extended to him, subject to the satisfaction of the condition, which however was not complied with. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner was also a party to the said proceedings, having been shown as the 5th respondent in Ext.P5. But since the matter was finalized at the admission stage, the husband could not enter appearance and make appropriate submissions. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner is presently working abroad and that the petitioner has been authorized to file the present Writ Petition so as to meet the immediate requirements; especially in view of the coercive proceedings. 2 WP(C) No. 25877/2010 3. Mr. K.K. Chandran Pillai, the learned senior counsel for the Bank submits on instructions that the idea and understanding of the petitioner that the Bank is resorting to some or other dubious means is not at all correct or proper. It is true that the borrower who filed the Writ Petition earlier before this Court leading to Ext.P5 judgment did not honour the commitment and this being the position, the Bank is proceeding with further steps for realization of the amounts due from the property of the borrower. It is also pointed out that the said property belonging to the borrower is one, where co-ownership rights are there for the wife, mother and brothers of the borrower who have been arrayed as the respondents 3 to 6 in the Writ Petition and they have also executed necessary documents in favour of the Bank with regard to the creation of security interest over the property. After considering the facts and figures and the limited grievance of the petitioner, the learned senior counsel for the Bank submits that the Bank is agreeable to proceed against the property of the borrower/defaulter at the first instance and if only the income generated therefrom in the public auction, will the Bank proceed against the property of the petitioner’s husband. 4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the only relief now pressed before this Court is for a direction to proceed against the property of the petitioner’s husband only after proceeding against the 3 WP(C) No. 25877/2010 properties of the borrower/defaulter. The grievance of the petitioner stands substantially redressed in view of the submissions made on behalf of the Bank. In the above circumstances, the submission made by the learned senior counsel for the Bank is recorded and the Writ Petition is disposed of. However it is made clear that, this will be without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the respondent Bank to proceed against the property of the husband of the petitioner, if and when necessitated, by pursuing such steps from the steps where it stands now. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc