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
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
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
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
