A guarantor's liability is co-extensive with the principal debtor, and the creditor can pursue recovery against the guarantor without exhausting the borrower's assets first.

JUDGMENT The petitioner was one of the guarantors to a loan availed by the 8^th respondent from the 7^th respondent Society. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is presently working as a Sub Inspector of Police while the 8^th respondent, who was working as a Civil Police Officer (DVR) in the Motor Transport Office, Ernakulam and retired from service on 31.05.2025.

2. According to the petitioner, the 7^th respondent Society is proceeding to recover the liability of the 8^th respondent from the salary of the petitioner and the other guarantor, while not attempting to recover the amount from the 8^th respondent.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the 7^th respondent Society submits that on default being committed by the 8^th respondent, proceedings were initiated under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act , 1969 against the petitioner, the other guarantor and the 8^th respondent and an award was obtained determining the liability of the 8^th respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner as a guarantor has no legal right to contend before this Court that the 7^th respondent must proceed against the 8^th respondent before proceeding against the petitioner. It is submitted that as a guarantor, the right of the petitioner would be to recover any amount, he is called upon to pay, on behalf of the 8^th respondent, from the assets of the 8^th respondent by initiating separate proceedings and he cannot be heard to contend that the proceedings against him must be suspended and proceedings must be continued against the 8^th respondent. It is submitted that going even by the petitioner’s own showing, the 8^th respondent retired from service on

31.05.2025.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 7^th respondent Society, I am of the view that the learned counsel appearing for the 7^th respondent Society is right in contending that the liability of the petitioner is co-extensive with that of the 8^th respondent and the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the recovery must be made from the 8^th respondent first. The remedy of the petitioner as a guarantor, who is called upon to pay any amount, payable by the 8^th respondent would be to file a suit against the 8^th respondent and his assets. In the facts of this case, the petitioner obtained an interim order that the retirement benefits of the 8^th respondent shall not be disbursed and, that interim order has been continuing till today (13.01.2026).

Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for the 8^th respondent.

5. In such circumstances, this writ petition will stand disposed of permitting the 7^th respondent Society to continue with the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. However since the retirement benefits of the 8^th respondent could not have been paid on account of the interim order dated 01.04.2025 in this writ petition, there will be a further direction to the 3^rd respondent to issue a show cause notice to the 8^th respondent to show cause as to why the amounts due to the 7^th respondent from the 8^th respondent should not be recovered and paid to the 7^th respondent from the retirement benefits of the 8^th respondent. This shall be done, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till the show cause notice to be issued to the 8^th respondent is adjudicated by the 3^rd respondent, the retirement benefits of the 8^th respondent shall not be disbursed to him.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-