Kerala High Court
Sheejamol vs The Authorized Officer on 11 July, 2025
WP(C) NO. 1766 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:51208
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 1766 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SHEEJAMOL,
AGED 45 YEARS
W/O LATE SHIBU.P.N. POTTAYIL HOUSE,
PARIPPU. P.O.,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686566
BY ADV SHRI.U.R.HARSHAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD,9TH FLOOR LIC BUILDING
M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682011
2 THE MANAGER,
L.I.C. HOUSING FINANCE LTD,
KANNAMPURATH BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, M.C. ROAD,
STAR JUNCTION,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ASP.KURUP - SC
SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP
SRI.C.P.ANIL RAJ
SHRI.SIVA SURESH
SMT.B.SREEDEVI
SMT.ATHIRA VIJAYAN
SMT.SWATHI KRISHNA P.H.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 1766 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:51208
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
=========================
W.P(C) No.1766 of 2025
=========================
Dated this the 11th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
This is the 3rd 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. 2256 of 2023, which resulted in Ext.P2 judgment wherein the
petitioner had only sought the grant of an instalment facility, which
was granted by this court on 10.04.2023. The petitioner again filed W.P.
(C) No. 3155 of 2024, in which also through judgment dated 14.03.2024
instalment facility was granted to the petitioner. This is the 3 rd round of
litigation. Admittedly, the conditions imposed in the earlier judgments
were not complied with. The present writ petition also challenges the
WP(C) NO. 1766 OF 2025
2025:KER:51208
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 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
WP(C) NO. 1766 OF 2025
2025:KER:51208
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
WP(C) NO. 1766 OF 2025
2025:KER:51208
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
LU
WP(C) NO. 1766 OF 2025
2025:KER:51208
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1766/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 20-
11-2020 ISSUED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR OF BIRTH
AND DEATH, ARPOOKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH IN
RESPECT OF THE DEATH OF SHIBU P.N.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 10-04-2023
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10-1-2024 UNDER
SECTION 13(12) R/W RULE 9 OF THE SARFEASI ACT
ISSUED BY THE 1 ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15-01-
2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1
ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 14-03-2024
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21-12-2024
ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE INVITATION CARD IN
RESPECT OF THE PROPOSED MARRIAGE OF THE
PETITIONER'S DAUGHTER
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30-06-2025,
SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT R1A A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO. CC 446/2023
DATED 30.12.2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE DCDRC
// True Copy // PA To Judge
