IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 26668 of 2009 Between: Kolluru Anil Kumar ..... PETITIONER AND Union Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorised Officer, Main Branch, Visakhapatnam & Others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No. 26668 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) On issuing auction notice by the 1st respondent-Bank by invoking the provisions of t h e Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘Act’), petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.26192 of 2007. This Court by order, dated 28.8.2009 dismissed the said writ petition on merits after taking into consideration the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the Bank. The present writ petition is filed on the very same cause of action i.e. the auction that was conducted by the 1st respondent-Bank on taking possession of the secured properties by following the procedure of issuing notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, contending that the present writ petition is filed on the grounds that were not subject matter of the earlier writ petition, and that certain important grounds were not urged in the earlier writ petition and a review petition filed to review the order passed therein is pending. It is now fairly well settled that against the very same cause of action, a subsequent writ petition cannot be maintainable on the ground that certain grounds which were ought to have been raised in the earlier writ petition are not raised and if such a course is allowed to be adopted, the doctrine of finality of judgments pronounced by the Court would also be materially affected, vide Devilal Modi v. Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam (AIR 1965 SC 1150). Further, in view of explanation IV to Section 11 C.P.C., an adjudication is conclusive and final not only as to the actual matter determined but as to every other matter which the parties might and ought to have litigated and have had it decided as incidental to or essentially connected with the subject matter of the litigation and every matter coming within the legitimate purview of the original action both in respect of the matters of claim or defence. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petitioner is at liberty to pursue the remedy to review the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.26197 of 2007, dated 28.8.2009. No order as to costs. _________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) ____________________ (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J.) DECEMBER 08, 2009 TSR