IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22300 of 2008(D) -------------------------- CMP.7275/2007 of C.J.M.,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ NASASRUDEEN, S/O.MYTHEENKUNJU SHAN MANZIL, KADAPPA, MYNAGAPPALY, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KARUNAGAPPALLY BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. 2. STASTE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY S.C. MR. SAJI VARGHESE. R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 22300 OF 2008 D = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of July 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against the proceedings initiated by the bank under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. However, the learned counsel for the Bank points out that the petitioner had on an earlier occasion filed a writ petition as W.P.(C) No. 7635/08 challenging the steps taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act. According to the counsel, Section 14 proceedings were initiated by the bank way back in March, 2007 and that the aforesaid writ petition was filed in March, 2008. The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 25.3.2008 and the petitioner was directed to pay the entire amount in default before 31.3.2008 and to approach the bank for settling the balance liability in instalments. 2. Not only that the aforesaid direction has not been W.P.(C) No. 22300 OF 2008 -2- complied with, but even the fact regarding the filing of the writ petition, is not even disclosed in the writ petition. For that reason itself, petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for and the request is liable to be dismissed. 3. Counsel submits that in the earlier writ petition proceedings under Section 14 were not under challenge. Even if it is so, the petitioner cannot be allowed to resort to piecemeal litigation. As the proceedings under Section 14 were pending at the time when the earlier writ petition was filed, if at all the petitioner wanted to challenge the same, it should have been done at that stage. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-