Kerala High Court
Sheeja Beegam vs Axis Bank on 11 August, 2025
2025:KER:60332
W.P.(C) No.29559 of 2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 29559 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SHEEJA BEEGAM,
AGED 58 YEARS, W/O ABDUL SALIM,
AL AMEEN MANZIL, KANNANCODE, ADOOR P.O,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-691523
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR
SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL
SMT.N.G.SINDHU
RESPONDENTS:
1 AXIS BANK,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
REGISTERED OFFICE, TRISHUL, 3RD FLOOR,
OPPOSITE TO SAMARTHESWAR TEMPLE,
NEAR LAW GARDEN, ELLISBRIDGE,
AHEMMEDABAD, PIN-380006
2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
RETAIL ASSETS CENTRE, AXIS BANK LTD,
5TH FLOOR, CHICAGO PLAZA,RAJAJI ROAD,
ERNAKULAM, PIN-683035
SRI. M. PREMCHAND, STANDING COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:60332
W.P.(C) No.29559 of 2025
-2-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.29559 of 2025
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of August, 2025
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. 32816 of 2024, which resulted in Ext.P6 judgment
wherein the petitioner had 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.
2025:KER:60332
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 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
2025:KER:60332
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 and the same is dismissed, without prejudice to the
2025:KER:60332
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
bpr
2025:KER:60332
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29559/2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT ISSUED BY THE
BANK DATED 15.11.2023 PERTAINING TO THE
PERIOD FROM 01.03.2022 TO 01.05.2023
Exhibit P2 THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT ISSUED BY THE
BANK DATED 05.04.2024
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 01.08.2023
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF POSSESSION
DATED 18.04.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
22.07.2024 IN W.P (C) NO.25892/2024 ON
THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
13.09.2024 IN W.P.( C) NO. 32816/2024 ON
THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.04.2025
IN M.C.NO. 232/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
PATHANAMTHITTA
