Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 3180
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 2ND POUSHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 42343 OF 2022 PETITIONER:
BABY SAFIA AGED 67 YEARS, W/O. MOIDEENKUTTY, KALLINGAL HOUSE, VELIYANKODE GRAMOM P.O., PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 679 579.
BY ADV SANJAY THAMPI RESPONDENTS:
1 AUTHORIZED OFFICER PUNALUR BRANCH, PUNALUR P.O., KOLLAM, PIN – 691 305.
2 BANK OF BARODA PUNALUR BRANCH, PUNALUR P.O., KOLLAM, PIN – 691 305.
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
3 BRANCH MANAGER BANK OF BARODA, PUNALUR BRANCH, PUNALUR P.O., KOLLAM, PIN – 691 305.
4 DR. K. K. BABU MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. TALCON, S/O. K.R. KUMARAN, MYLATTUPURA HOUSE, AYIRANALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN – 691 312.
5 AADIL FAIZAL ABDUL SAMAD AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL SAMAD, SMILING HOUSE, CHENDHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683 512.
OTHER PRESENT:
Sri Bipin Vijayan SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed with the following finding:
“Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, I am clearly of the opinion that there is considerable merit in the contention taken by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank that filing of the present writ petition amounts to an abuse of process of court. The record of litigations conducted by the petitioner which have been noticed above clearly indicates that the claim now made by the petitioner is absolutely without any bonafides. After initially obtaining an order for payment of the amount in instalments and after obtaining further time from the Division Bench and also from the Supreme Court, the petitioner did not pay any payment towards the loan liability. On 05.08.2015, the petitioner made an offer that the petitioner will settle the entire liability within a period of two months. Further directions were issued by this Court taking note of that submission made on behalf of the petitioner. It is clear that none of the undertakings given before this Court were complied with by the petitioner. Therefore, filing of the present writ petition is nothing but an abuse of process of court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The finding that the filing of this writ petition is an abuse of process would normally entail the imposition of exemplary costs. However, I refrain from imposing costs only on account of the fact that the petitioner is even otherwise in economic distress”.
Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that this writ petition filed seeking separate relief, I am of the view that the finding in the earlier writ petition precludes the petitioner from filing any fresh writ petition before this Court. I have found that the petitioner has conducted several rounds of litigation before a learned Single Judge of this Court, before a Division Bench, before the Supreme Court and again before this Court. The fact that the present writ petition is filed seeking other reliefs does not take away the fact that the petitioner had abused process of this Court earlier. The writ petitioner is therefore not entitled to any discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
This writ petition is dismissed.
