IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 7856 of 2010(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. MR.SHENO SEBASTIAN, AGED 30, S/O.JACOB SEBASTIAN, LISSY COTTAGE, ALAVASSERY, POTHUNDY PO, NENMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA. 2. MR.JACOB SEBASTIAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.K.X. JACOB, LISSY COTTAGE, ALAVASSERY, POTHUNDY PO, NENMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA. BY ADV. MR.PRADEESH CHACKO, MR.PAUL K.VARGHESE. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, NENMARA, KAIKUTTY BRANCH, PALAKKAD DT. REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, P.B.NO.123, SAKTHAN ARCADE, IST FLOOR, T.U.D.A. BUILDING, NEAR SAKTHAN THAMBURAN BUS STAND, THRISSUR, KERALA. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C).No. 7856 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J U D G M E N T The petitioners have approached this Court, challenging the steps taken by the respondent bank for realisation of the amount due from the petitioner, by invoking the machinery under the SARFAESI Act. 2. The learned counsel for the bank submits that, the petitioners have not complied with the condition imposed by this Court, while granting the interim order of 'status quo' on 10.3.2010 and that no interference is warranted in the said circumstances. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by placing a copy of the judgment dated 24.1.2008 in W.P.(C). No.2825/2008 (filed by the 2nd petitioner to the present proceedings, in respect of the very same cause of action) that there is also an interim order was passed, which however, was not complied with. In paragraph-3 of the said verdict, it has been observed as follows: W.P.(C).No. 7856 of 2010 2 “Whatever be the controversy, I am not inclined to show any indulgence to the petitioner. This is for the reason that on an earlier occasion petitioner had on the same cause of action filed a writ petition before this Court and that was disposed of relegating the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedies. A person cannot obtain interim order, commit default and thereafter again approach this Court.” 3. It was accordingly that the above Writ Petition was dismissed on the same day. From the above, it is clear that this is the third occasion that the petitioners are before this Court and even after obtaining the interim orders, they have not chosen to comply with the condition imposed. Thus, it cann't but be held that the petitioners are abusing the process of this Court. 4. In the above circumstances, no interference is warranted and the Writ Petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/-. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE nl