Back
2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 10568
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. B. Suresh Kumar, J
MANIYAN B – Appellant
Versus
THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER Advocate - P ANJANA, ,P ANJANA,R BINDU,HARISH GOPINATH,R S KALKURA,M S KALESH – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 1858/2018
A fresh writ petition is not a permissible method to seek review of prior court judgments.
Headnote:
Securitisation - Loan Default - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - The court interpreted provisions allowing default proceedings and emphasized the inadmissibility of seeking a review through a fresh writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner defaulted on a loan from a cooperative bank and sought permissions to pay overdue amounts in installments, challenging the bank's proceedings under the Securitisation Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petition as an attempt to review a previous judgment, ruling it not maintainable, while allowing the option to file a proper review application.
Issues: Whether a fresh writ petition can be filed seeking review of a prior judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: A fresh writ petition cannot serve as a review mechanism of an earlier court decision.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed, permitting only a proper review application.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner availed a loan from Karamana Co-
operative Urban Bank Limited (the bank). When he committed default, proceedings have been initiated by the bank against the security under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act) and the said proceedings was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C).No.10684 of 2017. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court permitting the petitioner to pay the overdue in the loan account in instalments. It is conceded by the petitioner that the overdue in the loan account has not been liquidated by him as permitted by this Court in terms of the judgment in W.P. (C).No.10684 of 2017. According to the petitioner, it is due to reasons beyond his control that he could not pay the overdue as permitted by this Court. The petitioner, therefore, seeks directions again in this matter for payment of the overdue in instalments and for regularisation of the loan.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the bank.
3. The prayer in the writ petition is virtually one for review of the judgment in W.P.(C).No.10684 of 2017. A fresh writ petition cannot be filed seeking review of the judgment in an earlier writ petition.
In the said view of the matter, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is, accordingly, dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file appropriate application for review of the judgment in W.P.(C).No.10684 of
2017, if so advised.
