Kerala High Court
Sidharthan T.A vs The Branch Manager on 10 July, 2025
WP(C) NO. 25323 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:50764
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 25323 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SIDHARTHAN T.A
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O AYYAPPAMKUTTY, THANDASSERY HOUSE, MATTIL DESOM,
KARAYAMPADAM P.O, VARANTHARAPPILLY, THRISSUR, PIN -
680303
BY ADVS.
SHRI.AJAIY BASKAR
SRI.V.V.JOY
RESPONDENT:
1 THE BRANCH MANAGER
SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, CHENGALOOR BRANCH, DOOR NO.
2/588/B, MOUNT CARMEL BUILDING, CHENGALOOR THRISSUR,
PIN - 680312
2 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE, JUBILEE
BUILDING, CIVIL LANE ROAD, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680003
BY ADV SHRI.RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 25323 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:50764
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P, J.
========================
W.P.(C) No. 25323 of 2025
========================
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with the following prayers;
" i) To direct the 1st respondent bank to allow the petitioner
to remit the balance outstanding amount in the overdraft facility in
20 equal monthly installments by issue of a writ of mandamus or such
other writ or order or direction.
ii) To grant such other identical reliefs including the costs
of these Proceedings.
iii) Grant such other relief deemed fit to this Hon'ble
court."
2. This is the second round writ petition. Earlier, the petitioner
filed W.P.(C) No.33769 of 2024 in which an instalment facility was granted,
as seen from Ext.P4. Thereafter, through an order in the application filed
seeking extension of time, this Court granted further time on 25.11.2024 as
seen from Ext.P5. It is admitted that the directions in Exts.P4 and P5 were
not complied with.
3. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Celir LLP v. Sumati
WP(C) NO. 25323 OF 2025
2025:KER:50764
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.
4. If the subject matter or seminal issues in a later proceeding are
substantially similar or connected to those already adjudicated, the
WP(C) NO. 25323 OF 2025
2025:KER:50764
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
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. 25323 OF 2025
2025:KER:50764
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25323/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 28.03.2022 UNDER
SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 19.05.2023 UNDER
SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 03.05.2024 ISSUED
BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.09.2024
IN WP (C) NO. 33769 OF 2024 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2024 IN
WP(C) NO. 33769 OF 2024
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSIT RECEIPT DATED
02.12.2024
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSIT RECEIPT DATED
05.12.2024
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOOGLE PAY RECEIPT DATED
05.12.2024
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 01.07.2025
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED
02.05.2025 ISSUED BY IRINJALAKUDA CO-
OPERATIVE HOSPITAL
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED
31.05.2025 ISSUED BY IRINJALAKUDA CO-
OPERATIVE HOSPITAL
EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE
PETITIONER'S FOOT POST SURGERY
// True Copy // PA To Judge
