A party's voluntary consent to salary deductions for loan recovery cannot be later contested under Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

JUDGMENT :

N. NAGARESH, J.

1. Petitioners both in these writ petitions have approached this Court seeking to direct the respondents not to proceed with recovery from their salary towards repayment of loans availed from the 1^st respondent-Bank.

2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17914/2025 submits that his mother availed a loan from the 1^st respondent-Cheruvannoor Service Co-operative Bank Limited on 17.03.2018 creating an equitable mortgage. The petitioner was made a co-obligant. In fact, the petitioner's mother had provided valuable property as security.

3. When loan account fell into arrears, the sale officer issued Ext.P6 auction notice intending to proceed against the mortgaged property. However, the petitioner was served with Ext.P7 auction notice directing the petitioner to remit Rs. 6,05,691/- failing which coercive steps were to be taken. Thereafter, the Secretary of the Bank issued Ext.P8 proceedings on 16.04.2025 to the Headmistress of the School where the petitioner is engaged as a Teacher. Ext.P8 seeks to deduct amounts from the petitioner's salary every month.

4. The petitioner states that there is substantial security provided by the borrower. The petitioner himself had repaid substantial amounts towards the loan account. Therefore, Ext.P8 proceedings is illegal and unjust. The petitioner has to spend huge for the treatment of his wife. Various amounts remitted by the petitioner have not been given credit. The amount due is not duly quantified. The KSFE has also initiated proceedings to recover amounts from the petitioner's salary in respect of a chitty where the petitioner is a guarantor. The salary is sought to be recovered in violation of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Exts.P1 and P6 to P8 are therefore liable to be quashed.

5. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17995 of 2025 is also employed as a Teacher in an Aided School. The petitioner stood as a surety to the 3^rd respondent for a chitty transaction. Now, proceedings have been issued to deduct Rs. 10,000/- per month from the petitioner's salary. The said proceedings have been issued without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and are in violation of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, contends the petitioner. The petitioner's monthly net salary is Rs. 34,634/- and he is already facing another salary deduction in connection with a loan availed by his mother from Cheruvannur Service Co-operative Bank. The wife of the petitioner is also undergoing continuous medical treatment.

6. The 2^nd respondent, Branch Manager of KSFE, in W.P.(C) No.17995 of 2025 filed counter affidavit. The petitioner in the writ petition is a Teacher in an Aided School and he had given an undertaking/agreement permitting recovery from his monthly salary in case of default in repayment. The petitioner has expressly agreed, consented and also has permitted the KSFE to recover default amount from salary. As per Section 128 of the CONTRACT ACT , the liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, unless it is otherwise provided by the contract. The petitioner had an option not to stand as surety. But, the petitioner came forward to sign guarantee agreement offering to recover money from his salary in case of default. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respective learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, in both the writ petitions.

8. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners have stood as guarantors to the principal debtors who availed financial advance from the financial institutions. When the institutions sought recovery of amounts due to them proposing to auction the mor