Back
2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 55436
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. B. Suresh Kumar, J
SUNIL JOY – Appellant
Versus
THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 11300/2018
A writ petition cannot be maintained to review or alter a prior judgment that has explicitly addressed the same issue.
Headnote:
Overdraft - Financial Obligations - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 14 - The Court upheld that a writ petition seeking indulgence for additional time to comply with a previous order is not maintainable as it would effectively review an existing judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner defaulted on an overdraft facility, prompting the bank to initiate proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets Act. After a previous court ruling allowing installment payments, the petitioner still failed to comply, leading to further proceedings and the current petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner’s attempt to file a second writ petition for installments was not maintainable, as it amounted to seeking a review of the earlier ruling permitting installments.
Issues: Whether the second writ petition for installment payments is maintainable when a previous petition had already addressed the issue and a ruling had been made.
Ratio Decidendi: The principle that a party cannot seek a second consideration of a matter that has already been decided by the court, as it constitutes an attempt to review an earlier judgment.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner was enjoying an overdraft facility from the first respondent bank (the bank). The petitioner did not remit the dues in respect of the said facility. The bank has, therefore, initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act) against the security. The said proceedings were challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P. (C).No.34897 of 2017. When the said writ petition came up for admission on 08.11.2017, the petitioner only prayed for indulgence to pay the amounts due in instalments. In terms of Ext.P6 judgment, this Court permitted the petitioner to pay the amounts due in instalments. The petitioner did not pay the amounts in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment. The bank, in the circumstances, continued the proceedings under the Act and obtained an order under Section
14 of the Act for dispossessing the petitioner from the security. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said proceedings. Hence, this writ petition.
2. When the matter was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already remitted a portion of the amount in terms of the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment and if some more time is granted, he is prepared to pay the balance amounts also.
3. In so far as the petitioner has already obtained an order permitting him to pay the amounts in instalments, a second writ petition for the same purpose, according to me, is not maintainable, for, the judgment in the second writ petition will have the effect of reviewing the judgment in the earlier writ petition.
In the said view of the matter, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
