IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14546 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- RAGHAVAN.T., KEDARAM, MANNARASALA PO, HARIPADU, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.S.MUMTAZ RESPONDENT: --------------- THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., REP.BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, HDFC HOUSE, POST BAG NO.1667, RAVIPURAM JN., KOCHI-15. BY ADV. MR. K.K. CHANDRAN PILLAI, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 14546 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 18th May , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of the steps stated as being taken by the respondent under the relevant provisions of the SARFAESI Act for realisation of the amount stated as due under a loan transaction. The loan to an extent of Rs. Two lakhs was availed in the year 2003, but repayment could not be effected on time, which made the respondent Bank to proceed with further steps. 2. Being aggrieved of the steps taken by the respondent Bank, the petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) No. 33139 of 2009, which led to Ext. P3 judgment. Taking note of the submission that the petitioner was ready and willing to clear the entire liability (opening paragraph of Ext.P3), the outstanding liability of Rs. 3,29,463/- was ordered to be repaid in a phased manner . Accordingly, Writ Petition was W.P.(C) No. 14546 OF 2010 2 disposed of directing to effecf payment of Rs.75000/- on or before 31.01.2010 giving appropriate direction with regard to the liability to satisfy the balance amount, as mentioned in paragraph 4 therein, simultaneously intercepting the coercive proceedings . 3. The petitioner is now before this Court with a new prayer stating that, because of severe financial constraints, the loan account may be ordered to be regularised. Obviously, no such prayer was pressed or any such relief was granted by this Court when the petitioner approached this Court earlier. In other words, the present Writ Petition is only a 'Review Petition in disguise', which is not liable to be entertained under any circumstances. The attempt of the petitioner can only be regarded as an abuse of proceess of the Court, more so, in view of the last sentence in Ext. P3 judgment that the petitioner will stand precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against the proceedings on his failure by approaching this Court or any other Forum. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Counsel for the respondent Bank that after passing W.P.(C) No. 14546 OF 2010 3 Ext.P3 judgment, time was extended by this Court to satisfy the liability as per the order dated 12.03.2010. 4. In the above circumstance, this Court finds that this is a case where further steps are liable to be taken against the petitioner. However, taking note of the persuasive submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court refrains from pursuing any such exercise, but for expressing dissatisfaction in the course and conduct pursued by the petitioner. The Writ Petition is devoid of any merit. Dismissed accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk