IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20739 of 2008(R) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ K.P.SOMAN, PLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE NADUVILEMURI, PODIYADI P.O., THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER ZONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, SARFAESI ACT CHIEF MANAGER, (ADVANCE) STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ZONAL OFFICE KOTTAYAM. 3. BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE MANIPUZHA BRANCH, PODIYADI P.O. BY SRI. SATHISH NINAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C).No.20739 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 14th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner does not challenge the liability to pay or the quantum. The petitioner only wants time to pay. 2. However, the learned Standing Counsel for the bank would submit that the securitisation proceedings started as early as in 2004 and earlier the petitioner approached this court by filing two writ petitions namely W.P.(C) No. 2955/05 and W.P.(C) No. 32504/07. The first writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn and in the second writ petition, the petitioner suffered Ext.P1 judgment by which this court permitted the petitioner to pay the amounts in installments as directed therein. The contention of the bank is that the effect being the same, the petitioner is not entitled to file another writ petition for the same relief. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in W.P(C).No.20739 of 2008 - 2 - those writ petitions the proceedings under the Securitisation Act was not under challenge and those writ petitions were filed on the ground that the proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act and the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act cannot be initiated simultaneously. Whatever that be, the challenge was against the securitisation proceedings itself. That being so the petitioner cannot after suffering Ext.P1 judgment file another writ petition for the same cause of action. Remedy of the petitioner, if at all, lies in seeking either review of the said judgment or seeking extension of time to comply with the directions therein. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner either to seek review the judgment or to seek extension of time in that writ petition this writ petition is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs