Kerala High Court
Ajith Somarajan vs The Authorized Officer on 25 September, 2025
2025:KER:71640
W.P.(C) No. 35182 of 2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 3RD ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 35182 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
AJITH SOMARAJAN,
AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. SOMAN,
KP 19/784, ABHINANDHANAM, EDATHARA,
KADAKKAL POST, KOLLAM, PIN-691536
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR
SMT.V.SHYLAJA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,
AJI TOWERS, TVM MAIN ROAD,
MARTHANDAM, TAMIL NADU, PIN-629165
2 M/S BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
MARTHANDAM BRANCH, TAMIL NADU, PIN-629165
SRI. T.A. PRAKASH, STANDING COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:71640
W.P.(C) No. 35182 of 2025
-2-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
----------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 35182 of 2025
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2025
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 approached this court by filing
WP(C) No.45828 of 2024, in which the petitioner was granted an
instalment facility by judgment dated 20.12.2024, as seen from
Ext.P4. However, the directions in the said judgment were not
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.
2025:KER:71640
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 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
2025:KER:71640
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 seek an extension of time for complying with the
2025:KER:71640
directions in Ext.P4 judgment or to move the Debts Recovery
Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
bpr
2025:KER:71640
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35182/2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.
47/2024 SUB COURT, KOTTARAKARA DATED
28.09.2024.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED
05.11.2024.
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER TO PETITIONER
DATED 13.12.2024.
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(C)
NO. 45828/2024 DATED 20.12.2024.
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED
10.09.2025.
