Rafeeque N. K. v. Malappuram District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.
2018-01-10
P.B.SURESH KUMAR
body2018
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT : P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J. 1. Petitioner availed a loan from the Malappuram District Co-operative Bank Limited (the bank). When he committed default, proceedings have been initiated by the bank against the petitioner under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act). The said proceedings was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C).No. 2061 of 2016. The said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P1 judgment permitting the petitioner to pay the overdue in the loan account in instalments, and directing the bank to regularise the loan, if the petitioner remits the overdue within the time stipulated in the judgment. 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 Ext.P1 judgment. When the bank continued the proceedings thereafter on account of the said reason, the petitioner approached this Court again by filing W.P.(C).No. 22310 of 2016 seeking indulgence for liquidation of the overdue in the loan account. The said writ petition was also entertained by this Court and further time was granted to the petitioner for settling the overdue. Ext.P3 is the judgment rendered by this Court in this connection. It is conceded that the petitioner has not liquidated the overdue in terms of Ext.P3 judgment also. The bank, consequently, pursued the action under the Act. This writ petition is filed, in the circumstance, seeking indulgence again for liquidation of the overdue in the loan account. 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 judgments in W.P.(C).Nos.2061 and 22310 of 2016. A fresh writ petition cannot be filed seeking review of the judgments in the earlier writ petitions. 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 judgments in W.P.(C).Nos.2061 and 22310 of 2016, if so advised.