IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31330 of 2011(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- ASHRAF,AGED 46 YEARS,S/O.MOHAMMED RAWTHER, SULEKHA MANZIL,ADIKKATTUKULANGARA,MAVELIKKARA TALUK,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR SRI.S.MOHANA KUMAR RESPONDENT: ----------- STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,NOORANADU BRANCH,MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 001 BY ADV. SRI. SATHISH NAINAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: dlk WP(C).No. 31330 of 2011(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT-P1: PHOTOCOPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT. EXT-P2: PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT OF PAYMENT DATED 19.11.2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE dlk S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.31330 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The petitioner seeks consideration of the petitioner's claim for One Time settlement. 2. The learned counsel for the Bank points out that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in respect of the same cause of action and obtained a judgment for payment in instalments. A review petition filed by the petitioner in respect of the same was allowed granting additional relief. That being so, the petitioner cannot file another writ petition on the same cause of action, is the contention of the bank. 3. After hearing both sides, I am inclined to agree with the counsel for the bank. The fact of the earlier judgment is not disputed by the petitioner. He has not even W.P.(C)No.31330 of 2011 -2- mentioned the same in this writ petition. After having obtained one relief in respect of the same cause of action, the petitioner cannot file another writ petition seeking a different relief. Even otherwise the petitioner has suppressed the fact of filing the earlier writ petition. For these reasons the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/