JUDGMENT

The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.8063 of 2024, in which, by judgment dated 29.02.2025, the petitioner was granted an instalment facility. However, the same was not complied with, resulting in the Bank initiating recovery proceedings. This writ petition also challenges the actions of the secured creditor against the defaulting borrowers and is therefore on the very same cause of action, and resultantly, this writ petition cannot be entertained.

2. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celir LLP v.

Sumati Prasad Bafna and Ors. ( MANU/SC/1343/2024 ), which relied on the decisions in State 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 facts give rise to multiple causes of action, a litigant cannot be permitted to agitate one cause in one proceeding and reserve the other for future litigation. Such fragmentation aggravates the burden of litigation and is impermissible in law. The Court reiterated that all claims and grounds of defence or attack which coul