Kerala High Court
Jayanthi vs The Alwaye Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd on 31 July, 2025
WP(C) NO. 27921 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:57068
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
THURSDAY, THE 31st DAY OF JULY 2025 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 27921 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
JAYANTHI, AGED 58 YEARS,
WIFE OF SATHEESH BABU K.C., VALIAYAVEETTIL HOUSE,
CHERIYATHEIKKANAM, NORTH KUTHIYATHODU P.O.,
PUTHENVELIKKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683594
BY ADVS. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT
KUM.ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN
SMT.V.NAMITHA
SMT.GITANJALI SADAN PILLAI
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE ALWAYE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
NO.1623, HEAD OFFICE, MARKET ROAD, ALUVA,
ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PIN - 683101
2 AUTHORISED OFFICER,
THE ALWAYE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
NO.1623, HEAD OFFICE, MARKET ROAD, ALUVA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683101
BY ADV SMT.R.LEELA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 31.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 27921 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:57068
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 filed W.P.(C) No.39458 of
2024, which was disposed of on 09.01.2025 through Ext.P7 judgment
granting an instalment facility, which has not been complied with
in full. 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],
WP(C) NO. 27921 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:57068
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.
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
right of the petitioner to file an application for extension of time for
complying with the directions in Ext.P7 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
DMR/-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27921/2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.05.2019
OF THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 05.06.2020
SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
DISCHARGE SUMMARY OF THE PETITIONER'S
SON
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE
PRESENT STATE OF THE PETITIONER'S SON
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27.09.2024
ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER
APPOINTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM IN MC
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
19.12.2024 IN W. P. (C) NO. 39458/2024
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
09.01.2025 IN W. P. (C) NO. 39458/2024
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF I. A. NO. 1/2025 IN W. P.
(C) NO. 39458/2024 FILED ON 25.02.2025
ON THE FILE OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
17.06.2025 ISSUED FROM THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE
