IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2011 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13965 of 2011(U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SABU JOSE, S/O.K.O. JOSEPH, AGED 33, KUNNEL HOUSE, VILAKKUMADOM, POOVARANI. P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI, SRI.BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD., PALA BRANCH, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, PALA BRANCH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, 686 575. 2. REJI JOSEPH, SOLE PROPRIETOR OF M/S. R.G. TRADERS, S/O.K.O. JOSEPH, AGED 36 YEARS, KUNNEL HOUSE, VILAKKUMADOM, POOVARANI. P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, 686 577. 3. THRESIAMMA JOSEPH, RESIDING ALONG WITH SABU JOSEPH, KUNNEL HOUSE, VILAKKUMADOM, POOVARANI. P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, 686 577. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-110 001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SC, SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH, SRI.SAIJO HASSAN, SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI, SRI.I.J.AUGUSTINE, SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN, SRI.RAFEEK. V.K., SRI.SEBIN THOMAS, SMT.J.KASTHURI. R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. S.G. OF INDIA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.13965 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders directing the first respondent to obey Exhibit P8 judgment. ii. Issue a writ of mandmus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders commanding the first respondent not to take any steps to take possession of the properties involved in Exhibits P4 and P5 in pursuance to Exhibit P11. iii. Issue a writ of mandmus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders commanding the first respondent to take steps against the properties in possession of the 2nd respondent in view to Exhibit P8 judgment. iv. Issue such other orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. It is noticed that the steps taken against one item of property covered under Ext.P11, was the subject matter in a previous writ petition, which was disposed of through Ext.P8 Judgment. The challenge raised therein was declined observing as follows:- “It is noticed that the property belonging to the 3rd respondent, upon which the petitioner is making claim was mortgaged for securing the loan. Therefore, the petitioner could not successfully raise any challenge against the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act against the said property. However, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent Bank had submitted that simultaneous steps will also be taken against other properties which are mortgaged for securing the loan transaction.” W.P.(C).13965/11 -2- 3. Now the petitioner is banking upon the submission of the counsel, recorded by this court to the effect that simultaneous steps will be taken against other properties, and is making complaint that no such steps was taken. But it is pertinent to note that the specific contentions raised in the previous writ petition challenging the steps initiated against the particular property was already declined. Therefore a subsequent writ petition seeking the very same relief is not at all sustainable. There is no positive direction issued by this court restraining any action against the property in question, on the basis that the respondents should initiate simultaneous steps against other properties. Not even any positive direction was issued to the 1st respondent Bank to take steps against the other properties. Even assuming that there was such a direction issued and that the Bank had violated the same, the same cannot be canvassed as a shield to protect the action against the property in question, since the challenge against such action was already declined. Under such circumstances this writ petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. It is noticed that the petitioner had already filed a contempt of court case alleging non-compliance of the terms of W.P.(C).13965/11 -3- Ext.P8 judgment. Without prejudice to pursue that case, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 5. However, it is made clear that, dismissal of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner seeking statutory remedy if any available to him. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb