A prior dismissal of a similar petition bars subsequent writ applications addressing the same issues.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 31^st day of January, 2026 The prayers in the writ petition are as follows;

“(i) To issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the 2^nd respondent to keep the coercive proceedings initiated pursuant to Exhibit P1 against the petitioner in abeyance and to permit the petitioner to discharge the outstanding dues in 20 monthly installments, without causing disruption to the petitioner’s family life, upon regularization of the loan account.

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the 1st respondent to furnish a complete and accurate statement of the petitioner’s loan account.

(iii) Such other relief’s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the nature of this case.”.

The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 31752 of 2025, which was dismissed on 28.11.2025. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip [ (2023) 17 SCC 311 ], the petitioner was relegated to avail the remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Since this Court has already considered the matter, the second writ petition cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-