IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 27939 of 2010(N) -------------------------- OA.55/2006 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- D.SURYANANRAYANA IYER, S/O.LATE S.DORASWAMI IYER, AGED 50 YEARS, 18/834,LAKSHMI NILAYAM COLONY, RAMAN MENON ROAD, CHALAPPURAM P.O., CALICUT-673002. BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.VINOD SMT.M.S.LETHA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, LINK (KALLAI) ROAD, KOZHIKODE REP BY ITS MANAGER BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER SMT.M.SINDHU THANKAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK WP(C).No. 27939 of 2010(N) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX -------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------ EXT.P1. COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS IN THE ORIGINL APPLICATION. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE I.A. NO.89/07 SEEKING AN EXPERT OPINION EXT.P3. COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P4. COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.08.2008. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.27083/08 EXT.P6. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO.2325/09. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------------ / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.27939 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging proceedings initiated by the respondent under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act for recovery of loan amounts due from the petitioner to the bank. 2. The prayers are opposed by the learned counsel for the bank, who points out that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court and suffered Ext.P5 judgment at the hands of a learned Single Judge of this Court. In an appeal the same was confirmed by Ext.P6 judgment by the Division Bench of this Court. By those judgments the petitioner was relegated to the remedy, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act, and therefore, the petitioner cannot file another writ petition for the same cause of action is his contention. I am of opinion that having suffered Exts.P5 and P6 judgments on the same cause of action, the petitioner cannot again file another writ petition for the same cause of action and therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd