The petitioner is aggrieved with the deduction of salary, proceeded with by the 1st respondent, for satisfaction of a loan availed by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner's contention is that, along with the petitioner, respondents 3 and 4 also stood as sureties and the 1st respondent is not proceeding against the original borrower or the other sureties.
2. It is trite that, the 1st respondent/creditor has the option to proceed against the original borrower; or against one or all of the sureties and the right of the surety who satisfies the amount due from the original borrower is only extended to proceed against the original borrower for realisation of such amounts. The liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the original borrower and is joint and several.
3. The next contention raised is on the basis of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court has in Sasidharan Nair v. Trivandrum Co- operative Urban Bank Ltd. [2009 (2) KLT 280] held that Section 60 CPC would not be applicable to the recovery proceeded under Section 37 of the Kerala Co-operative Act, 1969.
WP(C).No.10477 of 2008 - 2 -
4. In the above circumstances, neither of the contentions raised by the petitioner are sustainable. The 1st respondent is entitled to proceed against the original borrower or the sureties. The surety's right would be reserved to proceed against the original borrower, if he satisfies the amount due from the original borrower .
The writ petition would stand dismissed. No costs.
vku.
Sd/-
K.Vinod Chandran, Judge ( true copy )