Kerala High Court
C. Suhara Hussain vs The Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd on 18 July, 2025
WP(C) NO. 26487 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:53527
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 26487 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
C. SUHARA HUSSAIN,
AGED 55 YEARS
CHAKKIYAN PARAMBIL,AKALAD P.O, CHAVAKKAD,THRISSUR, PIN -
680518
BY ADV SHRI.MOHAMMED ASHRAF
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, EDAKKAZHIYUR BRANCH,
VELLIKULANGARA ROAD,THRISSUR, PIN - 680515
2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,EDAKKAZHIYUR
BRANCH,THRISSUR, PIN - 680515
SRI. THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 26487 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:53527
JUDGMENT
This is the second round of litigation preferred by the petitioner challenging the measures taken by the respondent bank, the secured creditor, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short the 'SARFAESI Act).
2. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this court by filing WP(C) No. 5783/2024 which resulted in Ext.P2 judgment wherein the petitioner had only sought the grant of an instalment facility, which was allowed by this court. Admittedly, the conditions therein were not complied with. The present writ petition also challenges the actions of the secured creditor against the defaulting borrower and is therefore on the very same cause of action, and resultantly, this writ petition cannot be entertained.
3. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Celir LLP v. Sumati Prasad Bafna and Ors. (MANU/SC/1343/2024), which relied on the decisions in State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain [(1977) 2 SCC 806], Devilal Modi v. Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam and Ors [AIR 1965 SC 1150], and the English decision in Greenhalgh v. Mallard [(1947) All ER 255 at p.257], to hold that where the WP(C) NO. 26487 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:53527 same set of facts give rise to multiple causes of action, a litigant cannot be permitted to agitate one cause in one proceeding and reserve the other for future litigation. Such fragmentation aggravates the burden of litigation and is impermissible in law. The Court reiterated that all claims and grounds of defence or attack which could and ought to have been raised in earlier proceedings are barred from being re-agitated subsequently. This rule stems from the Henderson Principle, which, as a corollary of constructive res judicata embodied in Explanation VII to Section 11 CPC, mandates that a party must bring forward the entirety of its case in one proceeding and not in a piecemeal or selective manner. Courts must examine whether a matter could and should have been raised earlier, taking into account the scope of the earlier proceedings and their nexus to the controversy at hand.
4. If the subject matter or seminal issues in a later proceeding are substantially similar or connected to those already adjudicated, the subsequent proceeding amounts to relitigation. Once a cause of action has been judicially determined, all issues fundamental to that cause are deemed to have been conclusively decided, and attempts to revisit any part WP(C) NO. 26487 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:53527 of it -- even through formal distinctions in forums or pleadings -- fall foul of the principle. Moreover, any plea or issue that was raised earlier and then abandoned is deemed waived and cannot be resurrected. The overarching object is to protect the finality of adjudications, discourage strategic or delayed litigation, and uphold judicial propriety and fairness by ensuring that parties do not approbate and reprobate or exploit procedural plurality to unsettle concluded controversies.
5. Given the above, this writ petition cannot be entertained and the same is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file an application for extension of time for complying with the directions in the earlier judgment, if so advised, or to invoke the remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE lsn WP(C) NO. 26487 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:53527 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26487/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 05.12.2023 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C). NO. 5783 OF 2024 DATED 14.02.2024 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK ALONG WITH ITS TRANSLATED COPY