J U D G M E N T

This is the 2^nd round of litigation preferred by the petitioner challenging the measures taken by the respondent bank, the secured creditor, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short the 'SARFAESI Act).

2. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this court by filing WP(C)

No. 37493 of 2024 which resulted in Ext.P1 judgment wherein the petitioner had only sought the grant of an instalment facility, which was disposed of by this court. Admittedly, the conditions therein were not complied with. The present writ petition also challenges the actions of the secured creditor against the defaulting borrower and is therefore on the very same cause of action, and resultantly, this writ petition cannot be entertained.

3. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inCelir LLP v. Sumati Prasad Bafna and Ors. ( MANU/SC/1343/2024 ), which relied on the decisions inState of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain [ (1977) 2 SCC 806 ],Devilal Modi v. Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam and Ors [AIR 1965 SC 1150] , and the English decision in Greenhalgh v. Mallard [(1947) All ER 255 at p.257], to hold that where the same set of