SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 6141

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
JAIJU MATHEW – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 3564 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.NAVEEN.T KUM, CHITHRA CHANDRASEKHARAN, SRI.V.S.ABHISHEK, SHRI.BIJI A MANIKOTH, SHRI.SHIBU JOSEPH KOTTAYIL
For the Respondents: SRI. SALIL NARAYANAN K.A., SC, SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GP

Court established the principle that recovery against a surety should be stayed when the principal debtor is granted a facility for installment repayment.

Headnote:This judgment pertains to WP

(C) No. 3564 of 2026. The petitioner sought relief against recovery proceedings initiated due to a third party's default in a chit transaction. The court found merit in the petitioner's request based on a prior judgment granting the principal debtor repayment in installments. The court directed to stay recovery proceedings against the petitioner for 20 months, clarifying that recovery may be initiated upon the third party's default.

Table of Content
1. stay of recovery proceedings against a surety when the principal debtor is granted repayment facility. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court hears submissions from counsel regarding the petition. (Para 3)
3. court orders stay based on prior judgment. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

The limited relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to respondents 2 to 5 not to recover any amount from the salary of the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P7 prohibitory order.

2. Petitioner was a surety to the chity, subscribed by the 6th respondent from the 5th respondent. When the 6th respondent defaulted repayment of the amount due under the chit transaction, proceedings were initiated against the 6th respondent as well as the petitioner. As far as the petitioner is concerned, proceedings were initiated to recover money from his salary as per Ext.P11. In the meantime, the 6th respondent approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.48449/2025, and by judgment dated 22.01.2026 produced as Ext.P12, this Court granted a facility for repayment in 20 equated monthly instalments commencing from 22.02.2026. It is specifically mentioned in the said judgment that in the event of default of any one instalment, respondents therein will be at liberty to initiate appropriate coercive proceedings. The petitioner being a surety seeks directions to prevent recovery from him.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the 5th respondent as well as the learned Government Pleader.

4. It is evident from Ext.P12 judgment that the subscriber to the chit has been granted the benefit of repayment of total liability due as on 31.01.2026 in 20 equated monthly instalments. Since the subscriber to the chit, who is the principal debtor, has been given the benefit of repayment in instalments, the recovery proceedings against the petitioner ought not to be proceeded with.

Hence, respondents 1 to 5 are directed to keep the revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner for the liability due from the 6th respondent in abeyance for a period of 20 months from today. It is clarified that, if, in case the 6th respondent commits default in repayment, necessarily the 5th respondent will be at liberty to initiate appropriate revenue recovery proceedings by intimating the same to respondents 3 and 4.

The writ petition is disposed of.

sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top