A party cannot challenge procedural actions stemming from previous lawful transactions if those actions are deemed an abuse of process.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The appellant calls into question the directions in the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P(C)No.23572/2025.

2. The Writ Petition was filed by the appellant on the assertion that Ext.P2 notice issued to him by the Village Officer, Anickad, Kottayam - notifying him that the property in question will be transferred in registry to the name of the person who purchased it - is illegal and unlawful; and further, that he had approached the Tahsildar, through Ext.P1, seeking certain orders, which require to be considered before the aforementioned notice is acted upon.

3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that it is an abuse of process; against which judgment, the appellant has come in Appeal.

4. We notice from the impugned judgment that the learned Single Judge has dealt with the facts in great detail; and we would not, therefore, want to add to the volume, by repetition.

5. Suffice to say, the appellant suffered an Arbitration Award at the instance of the 3^rd respondent – Bank; and he approached this Court for the first time against it, filing W.P(C)No. 21149/2018, which culminated in Ext.R3(a) judgment, interestingly, finding the said attempt to be an abuse of process.

6. The appellant did not stop there. He then approached this Court through W.P(C)No. 7794/2021, which was also dismissed through Ext.R3(b) judgment; to, thereafter, file W.P(C)No.31/2022, wherein, he sought the benefit of ‘One Time Settlement’ (‘OTS’). This Writ Petition was ordered in his favour; and the Bank is stated to have offered him the benefits of the ‘OTS’, but that was not complied with. 7. In the midst of all this, the property in question was sold in the year 2018 by the Bank and confirmed by the competent Authority in the year 2021; subsequent to which, the documents of title were registered in favour of the purchaser.

8. The appellant, thereupon, filed W.P(C)No.17739/2022, impelling the ground that the awards were null and void because they had been issued against a dead person; but finding that this had never been his case, when Ext.R3(a) judgment had been delivered and that when this issue was dealt with specifically in the Ext.R3(b) judgment, a learned Single Judge rejected this plea also.

9. When one examines Ext.P2, it is a notice issued by the Village Officer, as a matter of procedure, informing the appellant that the property in question - which had been, as seen earlier, sold in the year 2018 and confirmation of which, ordered in 2021 – is being transferred in its Registry to the purchaser. The appellant, interestingly, appears to have preferred Ext.P1, wherein, he initially said that W.P(C)No.17739/2022 was pending; but then added a note to it, conceding that the said Writ Petition had been withdrawn. His request, nevertheless, is that, until the Civil Court decides the matter, no further action pursuant to Ext.P2 be taken forward.

10. We see that the learned Single Judge has found the actions of the appellant to be nothing more than an attempt to abuse processes; and find full favour with this. This is because, what has been notified to the appellant, through Ext.P2, is only a corollary to the sale and its confirmation; while, what has been sought for by him in Ext.P1 is wholly untenable.

11. When all the aforesaid writ petitions had culminated against the appellant; and when he had also obtained the benefit of ‘OTS’, but did not honour it, his present contention, that action on Ext.P2 require to be deferred until Ext.P1 is disposed of, is nothing short of experimentation and speculation.

12. Though we had been persuaded to this view even earlier, we had given the appellant an opportunity to approach the Bank and try for a settlement. In fact, the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank – Sri.Jen Jaison, offered that if the appellant is to pay a particular sum before the end of this month, the account can be closed. We had recorded this in the order dated

17.02.2026, which is