IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2011 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 15498 of 2011(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.T.THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS THOMAS, THAKADIYEL VADAKETHIL HOUSE,S.N.PURAM POST, KOOROPADA VILLAGE, PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.E.V.MOLY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE BANK OF MYSORE, KOTTAYAM BRANCH, VETTEEL ESTATE, KANJIKUZHI, KOTTAYAM-686001, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER. ADV. SMT.A.S.SREEKALA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15498 of 2011(J) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.10.3.2011 EXT.P2: COOPY OF THELETTER DTD.2.4.2011 EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PAYMENT RECEIPTS EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.4.5.2011 EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.13.5.2011 EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.25.5.2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.15498 of 2011-J ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is against the coercive steps initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The petitioner is the guarantor with respect to a loan availed by his son from the respondent Bank, in the year 2007. Consequent to default committed in repayment, the immovable property, which is the secured asset, was proceeded against. It is evident that the petitioner's son had approached this court at a stage when steps were initiated for dispossession of the property. It was conceded therein that the petitioner's son is not intending to resort to any alternative remedy to challenge the recovery steps. On the other hand, it was undertaken that he is willing to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh forthwith and the remaining amounts in reasonable instalments. In Ext.P1 judgment, this court W.P(C) No.15498 of 2011-J 2 recorded submissions of the counsel appearing for the Bank to the effect that the outstanding liability is nearly Rs.13,05,643/-. Indulgence was shown in permitting the petitioner therein to clear the liability by making payment of the entire amounts in six equal monthly instalments, starting from 31.3.2011 onwards. This court also directed the respondent to handover possession of the building in question on payment of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- within one week from the date of the judgment. It is conceded that the petitioner's son had remitted a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and re- occupation of the building in question was permitted. But it is evident that, the petitioner's son had failed to comply with the further conditions imposed in Ext.P1 judgment. 2. It is further noticed that, the present petitioner, who is the father of the borrower and who is the guarantor to the loan transaction had filed another writ petition, W.P (C) No.13201/2011. Taking note of Ext.P1 judgment, this court was not inclined to entertain the said writ petition. However, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the W.P(C) No.15498 of 2011-J 3 said writ petition with liberty reserved to move before this court with appropriate petition seeking modification of Ext.P1 judgment. The writ petition was dismissed reserving such liberty, through Ext.P5 judgment. Eventhough Ext.P1 judgment was issued as early as on 10.3.2011 and Ext.P5 judgment was issued as early as on 13.5.2011, no steps was taken to seek modification of Ext.P1 judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the son was not available to file any application seeking modification of Ext.P1 judgment and the father, who is the present petitioner had already filed applications for impleading as well as for seeking enlargement of time stipulated in Ext.P1. 3. Heard; Sri.A.S.Sreekala, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. Considering the circumstances as stated above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner could not be permitted to agitate the same issue repeatedly by filing further writ petitions, with respect to the very same cause of action. It is not at all proper and justified considering the judicial discipline to entertain the challenge W.P(C) No.15498 of 2011-J 4 raised against the proceedings now initiated for dispossession of the property. It is pertinent to note that the property in question was already dispossessed and re- occupation of the building was permitted only by virtue of the conditions imposed in Ext.P1 judgment. Since the petitioner had failed to comply with such conditions no further indulgence can be shown in this regard. 4. For the reasons stated as above, I am of the view that the writ petition deserves no merit. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab