Kerala High Court
Shibu.P.J vs The Federal Bank Limited on 10 October, 2025
2025:KER:75500
W.P.(C) No.37493 of 2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 18TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 37493 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 SHIBU.P.J.,
AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.JOSE @ JOSEPH,
PYNADATH HOUSE, KURUVILASSERY P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680732
2 MOLY SHIBU,
AGED 46 YEARS, W/O SHIBU PYNADATH JOSEPH,
PYNADATH HOUSE, KURUVILASSERY P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680732
BY ADV SHRI.FRANCO T.J.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT
LCRD THRISSUR DIVISION, 1ST FLOOR,
CHENCHERY TOWER, THRISSUR-ERNAKULAM HIGH ROAD,
THRISSUR, PIN-680001
2 THE BRANCH MANAGER,
FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, MALA BRANCH,
XII/1379A, POST OFFICE ROAD, MALA P.O.,
THRISUSR DISTRICT, PIN-680732
ADV.LEO GEORGE, STANDING COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 10.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:75500
W.P.(C) No.37493 of 2025
-2-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.37493 of 2025
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing
W.P.(C) No.8063 of 2024, in which, by judgment dated 29.02.2025, the
petitioner was granted an instalment facility. However, the same was
not complied with, resulting in the Bank initiating recovery
proceedings. This 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.
2. 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
2025:KER:75500
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.
3. 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
2025:KER:75500
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.
4. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek
extension of time to comply with the directions in Ext.P4 judgment, or
to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, this Writ petition is disposed of.
To enable the petitioner to avail of the same, further proceedings
shall stand deferred for a period of one week.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
bpr
2025:KER:75500
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37493/2025
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT DATED
05/02/2024 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT BANK.
Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED
09/01/2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED
09/01/2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.
Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
29/02/2024 IN W.P(C)NO.8063/2024.
Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 28/03/2024
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 30/04/2024
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 13/06/2024
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED
11/06/2024 ISSUED BY THE AUTHORISED
OFFICER OF 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P9 TRUE COPY OF THE OUT-PATIENT REGISTRATION
CARD DATED 30/04/2025.
Exhibit-P10 TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL REPORT (ADULT
CARDIOLOGY) DATED 20/05/2025 ISSUED BY
THE GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, THRISSUR.
Exhibit-P11 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25/09/2025
ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
Exhibit-P12 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25/09/2025
ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.
