IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2011 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28839 of 2011(D) ----------------------------------- MC.31/2011 of C.J.M.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ALEEMA AMEEN, W/O.AL AMEEN, RESIDING AT SNEHATHEERAM,KURAIKKANI, VARKALA P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.A.B.MOHANAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSRTS RECOVERY BRANCH, CHILD WELFARE COMPLEX,LMS COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN 695 033 REP.BY THE SUTHORISED OFFICER 2. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, THAMPANOOR BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001 ADV. SRI. R.S. KALKURA - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 28839 of 2011(D) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER CUM AUCTION SALE NOTICE DATED 14-07-2011 PUBLISHED IN THE HINDU DATED 17-07-2011 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10-10-2011 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN MC NO.31/2011 BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.28839 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act initiated by the respondents for recovery of loan amounts due from the petitioner to the respondents. In the writ petition itself the petitioner reveals that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C)No.26921/2010 against proceedings under the Act, which was disposed of permitting the petitioner to regularise the loan account. Obviously, the petitioner has not complied with the conditions of that judgment. That is why the respondents have again initiated proceedings. Therefore, the remedy of the petitioner lies in seeking review of that judgment appropriately. The petitioner cannot file another writ petition on the same cause of action. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek review of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.26921/2010. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd