Kerala High Court
Ajith Gopidas vs Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd on 23 July, 2025
2025:KER:54596
WP(C) NO.19225 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 19225 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
1 AJITH GOPIDAS,
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O MD GOPIDAS, SREE VIHAR, MAYITHARA MARKET P.O.,
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 688539
2 MD GOPIDAS,
AGED 86 YEARS
SREE VIHAR, MAYITHARA MARKET P.O.,CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 688539
BY ADVS.
SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP
SRI.C.P.ANIL RAJ
SHRI.SIVA SURESH
SMT.B.SREEDEVI
SMT.ATHIRA VIJAYAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LTD.,
11TH FLOOR TOWER A, PENINSULA BUSINESS PARK, GANAPAT
RAO KADAM MARG LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA
MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 400013
2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
THE TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, 11TH FLOOR
TOWER A, PENINSULA BUSINESS PARK, GANAPAT RAO KADAM
MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI,MAHARASHTRA, REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 400013
2025:KER:54596
WP(C) NO.19225 OF 2025
2
3 HAROON SHAHUL HAMEED,
S/O SHAHUL HAMEED, 49/958, KENT GLASS HOUSE, NEAR
MOBILITY HUB, VYTILLA PO, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682019
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY, SC
SHRI.SHIBU JOSEPH
SHRI.SREEJITH K.
SHRI.ANIL KUMAR.B
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:54596
WP(C) NO.19225 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed with the following prayers;
"A) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction setting aside Ext.P2 and Ext.P5 as illegal and unsustainable in
law.
B) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction permitting the petitioner to clear off the entire outstanding
amount in two weeks' time.
C) Petitioner also prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dispense
with the translation of the vernacular documents produced in the
vernacular language.
D) Grant such other reliefs, which are deemed fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case."
2. This is the 4th round of litigation preferred by the petitioners
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).
3. Earlier, the petitioners had filed WPC Nos.40902 of 2022, 11359 of
2025 and 14811 of 2025. All of which were against the actions of the secured
creditor. Admittedly, the conditions therein were not complied with. The present
writ petition also challenges the actions of the secured creditor against the
defaulting borrowers and is therefore on the very same cause of action, and
resultantly, this writ petition cannot be entertained.
2025:KER:54596
WP(C) NO.19225 OF 2025
4. 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 into account
the scope of the earlier proceedings and their nexus to the controversy at hand.
5. 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
2025:KER:54596
WP(C) NO.19225 OF 2025
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.
6. Given the above, this writ petition cannot be entertained and the
same is dismissed.
SD/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.,
JUDGE
JJ
2025:KER:54596
WP(C) NO.19225 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19225/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20.12.2022
PASSED IN WP(C) NO.40902/2022
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED
22.02.2025
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.03.2025
PASSED IN WP(C) NO. 11359/2025
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.04.2025
PASSED IN WP(C) NO. 14811/2025
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED
11.04.2025
