IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2011 / 15TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17491 of 2011(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- H.MOHAMMED SHAFI, AGED 48 YEARS,S/O.HANEEFA KUNJU,THEKKE VEEDU, KOTTIYAM P.O.,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER (CHIEF MANAGER), UNION BANK OF INDIA, M.G.ROAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, KOTTIYAM BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN – 691 571. R1 & R2 BY SRI. A.S.P. KURUP, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.17491/2011-J: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 27/07/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 19/01/2011 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 08/03/2011 IN W.P.(C).NO.5328/2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 06/05/2011 ISSUED FROM THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ........................................... W.P.(C).NO.17491 OF 2011 ............................................. Dated this the 6th day of July, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act initiated by the respondents for recovery of defaulted loan amounts. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court and obtained Ext.P3 judgment. Admittedly the petitioner has not complied with the directions in that judgment. Therefore if I consider this writ petition now, that would practically amount to review of that judgment which I cannot do in law. Therefore, I cannot pass another judgment giving further time to the petitioner to comply with Ext.P3 judgment. If the petitioner has any complaint regarding non-compliance with the provisions of the Act, it is for the petitioner to challenge the proceedings in an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal as provided under the Act. Without prejudice to that right or the right to approach the Judge who passed Ext.P3 judgment for review of extension of time to pay, this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. cl