Kerala High Court
Sheejamol vs The Authorized Officer on 11 July, 2025
WP(C) NO. 1766 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:51208
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 1766 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SHEEJAMOL,
AGED 45 YEARS
W/O LATE SHIBU.P.N. POTTAYIL HOUSE,
PARIPPU. P.O.,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686566
BY ADV SHRI.U.R.HARSHAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD,9TH FLOOR LIC BUILDING
M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682011
2 THE MANAGER,
L.I.C. HOUSING FINANCE LTD,
KANNAMPURATH BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, M.C. ROAD,
STAR JUNCTION,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ASP.KURUP - SC
SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP
SRI.C.P.ANIL RAJ
SHRI.SIVA SURESH
SMT.B.SREEDEVI
SMT.ATHIRA VIJAYAN
SMT.SWATHI KRISHNA P.H.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 1766 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:51208
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
=========================
W.P(C) No.1766 of 2025
=========================
Dated this the 11th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
This is the 3rd 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. 2256 of 2023, which resulted in Ext.P2 judgment wherein the petitioner had only sought the grant of an instalment facility, which was granted by this court on 10.04.2023. The petitioner again filed W.P. (C) No. 3155 of 2024, in which also through judgment dated 14.03.2024 instalment facility was granted to the petitioner. This is the 3 rd round of litigation. Admittedly, the conditions imposed in the earlier judgments were not complied with. The present writ petition also challenges the WP(C) NO. 1766 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:51208 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 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 WP(C) NO. 1766 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:51208 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 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 WP(C) NO. 1766 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:51208 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 LU WP(C) NO. 1766 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:51208 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1766/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 20- 11-2020 ISSUED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH, ARPOOKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH IN RESPECT OF THE DEATH OF SHIBU P.N. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 10-04-2023 IN W.P.(C) NO.2256/2023 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10-1-2024 UNDER SECTION 13(12) R/W RULE 9 OF THE SARFEASI ACT ISSUED BY THE 1 ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15-01- 2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1 ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 14-03-2024 IN W.P. ©. NO. 3155/2024 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21-12-2024 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE INVITATION CARD IN RESPECT OF THE PROPOSED MARRIAGE OF THE PETITIONER'S DAUGHTER EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30-06-2025, SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER RESPONDENT EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT R1A A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO. CC 446/2023 DATED 30.12.2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE DCDRC // True Copy // PA To Judge