respondent company as a joint borrower along with the second respondent company and also a guarantor in his personal capacity. It is also in away admitted that the second respondent bank committed default and proceedings have been initiated for the recovery of the amount before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam and that is pending. Since the property of the first petitioner has been settled in favour of the second petitioner, the first respondent bank filed the present suit as O.S.36/2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Manjeri to declare that document as void, fraudulently created to defeat the right of the creditors. It is true that the petitioner had produced certain documents in order to prove his case that there is no liability for him and he has been exonerated from the liability by the other directors of the second respondent bank. The question as to whether he has got any liability etc., is a matter to be decided by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam in the proceedings pending before that forum. Further there is no necessity to keep in abeyance O.S.36/2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Manjeri, which has been filed by the first respondent bank, challenging the execution of a document by the first petitioner in favour of the 2nd petitioner, till the property of second respondent company is traced out.
