IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 31ST BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 24851 of 2011(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- T.K.GEORGE VAIDYAN, THENGUMVILAYIL HOUSE, MYNAGAPPALLY, THEVALAKKARA P.O., KOLLAM-690 534. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.SEBASTIAN JOSEPH (KURIZUMMOOTTIL) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CHIEF MANAGER (AUTHORISED OFFICER) THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, UNION BANK BHAVAN, M.G.ROAD, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, KARUNAGAPPALLY BRANCH, KOLLAM-686 101. 3. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM-691 001. 4. RENU.S.RAJAN, ADVOCATE (COMMISSIONER) KOLLAM-691 101. BY SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN, GOVT. PLEADER SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 24851 of 2011(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF SANCTION DATED 28/11/2005 FROM THE KARUNAGAPPALLY BRANCH OF THE UNION BANK OF INDIA. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT ISSUED BY THE BANK. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT AS ON 16/9/2011 ISSUED BY THE BANK. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27/7/2010 IN THE WRIT APPEAL NO.846 OF 2010. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7/9/2011 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM IN CMP.2004/2011. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ENVELOPE. EXHIBIT P6(A): TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL SEAL DATED 16/9/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE amk S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 24851 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of September, 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) initiated by the respondents 1 & 2 for recovery of loan amounts due from the petitioner to the respondents 1 & 2. The petitioner seeks some time to pay off the amounts. 2. This is opposed by the learned counsel for the Bank who points out that, the petitioner has already approached this court on the same cause of action and suffered Ext.P4 judgment of the Division Bench. The petitioner has not complied with the conditions prescribed in Ext.P4 judgment also. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any further indulgence by this Court, is the contention raised. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. W.P.(C)No. 24851 of 2011 -2- 4. After having suffered Ext.P4 judgment on the same cause of action, I do not think that the petitioner can again invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If I interfere at this stage, it would amount to review of Ext.P4 judgment, which I cannot do under law. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/