Repeated litigation without adherence to prior orders constitutes an abuse of process, justifying dismissal of the current writ petition.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 representation within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. The petitioner also prays for a writ of mandamus ‘directing respondents to grant time up to 28-02-2026 to complete the sale of the secured property in terms of the agreement for sale and to clear the entire dues payable to the 4^th respondent bank directly out of the sale proceedings, and for a further direction that all coercive steps, including confirmation of sale, be kept in abeyance till the consideration of Ext.P5 representation by respondents 1 to 3’.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the

4^th respondent bank would submit that the petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. It is pointed out that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P(C)No.12671 of 2024, which was disposed of on 18-06-2024, permitting the petitioner to clear the liability in 20 equal monthly instalments. It is submitted that no amount was paid by the petitioner in terms of the directions issued by this Court in the judgment dated 18-06-2024 in W.P(C)No.12671 of 2024, thereby forcing the bank to notify the mortgaged property for sale. It is pointed out that thereafter the petitioner filed W.P(C)No.12344 of 2025, which was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment dated 12-11-2025, finding that the petitioner was not entitled to the reliefs sought for in that writ petition. It is submitted that the judgment in W.P(C)No.12344 of 2025 was challenged by filing W.A.No.2788 of 2025 , and that a Division Bench elaborately considered the matter and found that W.P(C)No.12344 of 2025 was not maintainable. It is submitted that, in such circumstances, the filing of the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as aforesaid is an abuse of the process of Court.

3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the

4^th respondent bank, and in the light of the Ext.P2 judgment of this Court and Ext.P3 judgment of the Division Bench, I am constrained to hold that the filing of this writ petition is clearly an abuse of process of Court. Though the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent bank has submitted that he is entitled to exemplary costs as the bank is being called upon to defend repeated litigations at the instance of the petitioner, since this writ petition is being dismissed in limine, I reluctantly refrain from imposing costs.

The writ petition fails, and it is dismissed accordingly.

Sd/-