JUDGMENT : Anil K. Narendran, J. The respondents in W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025 have filed this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 , challenging the order dated 27.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.4 of 2025 in that writ petition. 2. W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025 was filed by the respondents herein, who had availed a loan from HDFC Bank Limited, the 2 nd appellant herein, for purchasing a vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL- 01/CT-9091. When the respondents defaulted repayment, the authorised officer of the Bank, the 1 st appellant herein, issued Ext.P1 notice dated 27.12.2024, invoking the provisions under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), demanding a payment of Rs.13,74,452.13 together with future interest at the contractual rate and penal interest, with effect from 25.12.2024. In Ext.P1 notice it is stated that on account of default in repayment of the secured debt, the account has been classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 03.09.2024. On receipt of Ext.P1 notice, the respondents herein have submitted Ext.P2 objection dated 06.01.2025, as evident from Ext.P3 postal acknowledgement card. The document marked as Ext.P4 is a copy of notice of lien dated 10.02.2025 issued by the 1 st appellant Bank in respect of an account maintained by the 2 nd respondent herein. On 18.03.2025 the respondents herein filed W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the appellants herein to permit them to clear the overdue in the loan account, by way of reasonable monthly installments; a writ of mandamus commanding the 2 nd appellant herein to regularise the loan account and allow them to continue repayment as per the terms of the loan agreement; a writ of mandamus commanding the 2 nd appellant herein to keep in abeyance all further proceedings under the SARFAESI Act; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 2 nd appellant herein to restructure the loan, by enabling them to pay the overdue amount. 3. W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025 was disposed of by the judgment dated 01.04.2025 with a direction to the Bank to accept repayment of the entire overdue amount of Rs.2,56,513/- along with any accrued interest, costs and charges from the respondents herein and regularise the loan account in the manner stated in paragraph 5 of that judgment. 3. W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025 was disposed of by the judgment dated 01.04.2025 with a direction to the Bank to accept repayment of the entire overdue amount of Rs.2,56,513/- along with any accrued interest, costs and charges from the respondents herein and regularise the loan account in the manner stated in paragraph 5 of that judgment. In the judgment it was made clear that in the event of default of any one installment, the Bank shall be entitled to proceed in accordance with law. 4. On 07.08.2025, the respondents herein filed W.P.(C) No.29526 of 2025 before this Court, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the appellants herein to release vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-01/CT-9091 seized by the Bank; a writ of mandamus commanding the appellants herein to permit them to repay the pending dues and consider their case in a sympathetic manner; a writ of mandamus commanding the appellants herein not to initiate any steps for distress sale or cause damage to the repossessed vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-01/CT-9091; and a writ of mandamus commanding the appellants herein to restructure the loan, by enabling them to pay the overdue amount. 5. In paragraph 4 of the statement of facts in W.P.(C)No. 29526 of 2025, the respondents herein have stated that even though they are regular in repaying the installment amount as per the judgment dated 01.04.2025 in W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025 and taking earnest efforts to see that payments are made in time, there happened to be some shortfall in the regular EMIs. 6. By the judgment dated 08.08.2025, the learned Single Judge disposed of W.P.(C)No.29526 of 2025 by directing the respondents herein either to seek extension of time to comply with the directions in the judgment dated 01.04.2025 in W.P.(C)No. 12280 of 2025 or to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 7. After the disposal of W.P.(C)No.29526 of 2025, the respondents herein filed I.A.No.2 of 2025 in W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025, on 12.08.2025, invoking the provisions under Rule 150 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 , in the said writ petition which was already disposed of by the judgment dated 01.04.2025, seeking an order directing the appellants herein to grant extension of a further period of two months to pay the defaulted amounts towards the vehicle loan account and to regularise the vehicle loan availed by them. Along with I.A.No.2 of 2025, the respondents herein have filed I.A.No.3 of 2025, seeking an order directing the appellants herein not to initiate any steps for distress sale or cause damage to the repossessed vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-01/CT- 9091. 8. Thereafter, on 16.08.2025, the respondents herein filed I.A.No.4 of 2025, invoking the provisions under Rule 150 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 , seeking an order directing the appellants herein to consider the request made by them and give back the possession of the secured asset, subject to the condition that they shall pay the overdue amount and regular EMIs on or before 30.08.2025. Along with the said interlocutory application, they have placed on record Annexure B possession notice dated 05.08.2025 issued by the Bank under the provisions of Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 , along with Panchanama evidencing repossession of the vehicle on 05.08.2025. 9. On 27.08.2025, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order in I.A.No.4 of 2025, after taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners (respondents herein) that the writ petitioners will make a substantial payment immediately. By that order, the learned Single Judge ordered that, if the writ petitioners pay the overdue amount of Rs.2,65,906.41 within 20 days from the date of order, the possession of the vehicle shall be restored to them, which shall be subject to the condition that the regular EMIs, if any, payable by the writ petitioners, after 27.08.2028 shall also be paid by them on the due dates, without fail. By the order dated 27.08.2025, the learned Single Judge permitted the writ petitioners to approach the Bank for one time settlement, if they so desire. In the said order, the learned Single Judge made it clear that, if the writ petitioners commit any further default, after receiving possession of the vehicle as directed in the order dated 27.08.2025, they shall handover the vehicle to the authorised officer of the Bank. 10. Challenging the order dated 27.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.4 of 2025 in W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025, the appellants-respondents are before this Court in this writ appeal. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants- respondents and also the learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners. 12. 10. Challenging the order dated 27.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.4 of 2025 in W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025, the appellants-respondents are before this Court in this writ appeal. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants- respondents and also the learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants-respondents would contend that the interference made by the learned Single Judge in the proceedings pursuant to Annexure B possession notice dated 05.08.2025 is absolutely without any jurisdiction and the interference so made is in violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip [ (2023) 17 SCC 311 ] . After the disposal of W.P.(C)No. 12280 of 2025, by the judgment dated 01.04.2025, the respondents herein committed a default in paying the monthly installments towards the overdue as well as regular instalments, which had resulted in the appellants proceeding under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, which had resulted in the issuance of Annexure B possession notice dated 05.08.2025 and also the re-possession of the vehicle on 05.08.2025, as evident from the Panchanama, which forms part of Annexure B notice. After the issuance of Annexure B notice and re-possession of the vehicle on 05.08.2025, the Single Judge entertained the interlocutory applications filed in W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025, a writ petition which has already been disposed of finally by the judgment dated 01.04.2025. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the appellants would place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma [(1987) 2 SCC 179] 13. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners would contend that no interference is warranted in the order dated 27.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.4 of 2025 in W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025, since the learned Single Judge by that order has granted only a breathing time to the writ petitioners to clear the overdue amounting to Rs.2,65,906.41 as on 27.08.2025, i.e., within a period of 20 days from the date of that order, and to restore them possession of the vehicle, if the said amount is paid. The above direction of the learned Single Judge is subject to the condition that the writ petitioners pay the regular EMIs on the respective due dates without fail. The above direction of the learned Single Judge is subject to the condition that the writ petitioners pay the regular EMIs on the respective due dates without fail. In the order dated 27.08.2025, the learned Single Judge has made it clear that, if the writ petitioners commit any further default, after receiving possession of the vehicle, they shall hand over the vehicle to the authorised officer of the Bank. 14. As already noticed hereinbefore, W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025 was disposed of by the judgment dated 01.04.2025 of the learned Single Judge with a direction to the Bank to accept repayment of the entire overdue amount of Rs.2,56,513/- along with any accrued interest, costs and charges from the respondents herein and regularise the loan account in the manner stated in paragraph 5 of that judgment. The respondents herein were directed to pay the regular EMIs/installments along with the installments for the overdue amount. In the judgment it was made clear that in the event of default of any one installment, the Bank shall be entitled to proceed in accordance with law. Paragraphs 4 and 5 and also the last paragraph of the judgment dated 01.04.2025 in W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025 read thus; "4. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the submissions made as recorded above, I am of the view that the petitioners can be granted an opportunity to repay the overdue amount in 10 installments and thereafter, if the amount so directed is repaid within the time as directed above, to have the loan account regularized. 5. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respondent bank to accept repayment of the entire overdue amount of Rs.2,56,513/- along with any accrued interest, costs and charges from the petitioners and regularize the loan account of the petitioners in the following manner: (i) The petitioners shall pay the overdue amount of Rs.2,56,513/- together with any accrued interest, costs and charges in 10 equated monthly installments; (ii) The first installment shall be paid on or before 30.04.2025. The subsequent installments shall be paid on or before the last working day of the succeeding months; (iii) Petitioners shall continue to pay the regular EMI’s/installments along with the installments as directed above; (iv) In the event of default of any one installment, the respondent bank shall be entitled to proceed in accordance with the law; (v) In order to enable the petitioners to repay the entire amounts, all coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above.” (underline supplied) 15. On 07.08.2025, the respondents herein filed W.P.(C) No.29526 of 2025 before this Court, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the appellants herein to release vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-01/CT-9091 seized by the Bank; a writ of mandamus commanding the appellants herein to permit them to repay the pending dues and consider their case in a sympathetic manner; a writ of mandamus commanding the appellants herein not to initiate any steps for distress sale or cause damage to the repossessed vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-01/CT-9091; and a writ of mandamus commanding the appellants herein to restructure the loan, by enabling them to pay the overdue amount. 16. In paragraph 4 of the statement of facts in W.P.(C)No.29526 of 2025, the respondents herein have stated that even though they were regular in repaying the installment amount as per the judgment dated 01.04.2025 in W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025 and taking earnest efforts to see that payments are made in time, there happened to be some shortfall in the regular EMIs. By the judgment dated 08.08.2025, the learned Single Judge disposed of W.P.(C)No.29526 of 2025 by directing the respondents herein either to seek extension of time to comply with the directions in the judgment dated 01.04.2025 in W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025 or to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Paragraphs 2 and 3 and also the last paragraph of the judgment dated 08.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.29526 of 2025 read thus; “2. Earlier, the petitioners had approached this court by filing WP(C)No.12280 of 2025, which resulted in Ext.P1 judgment wherein the petitioners had only sought the grant of an instalment facility, which was granted by this court. The petitioners contend that the directions in the judgment have not been complied with in full. Earlier, the petitioners had approached this court by filing WP(C)No.12280 of 2025, which resulted in Ext.P1 judgment wherein the petitioners had only sought the grant of an instalment facility, which was granted by this court. The petitioners contend that the directions in the judgment have not been complied with in full. Since the present writ petition is also on the same cause of action, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioners to either seek an extension of time to comply with the directions in Ext. P1 judgment or to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’). The writ petition is disposed of as above.” 17. After the disposal of W.P.(C)No.29526 of 2025, by the judgment dated 08.08.2025, the respondents herein-writ petitioners filed I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 in W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025, invoking the provisions under Rule 150 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 . The said interlocutory applications were filed on 12.08.2025 in the writ petition, which has already been disposed of by the judgment dated 01.04.2025. I.A.No.2 of 2025 is one filed seeking an order directing the appellants herein to grant extension of a further period of two months to pay the defaulted amounts towards the vehicle loan account and to regularise the vehicle loan availed by them. I.A.No.3 of 2025 is one filed seeking an order directing the appellants herein not to initiate any steps for distress sale or cause damage to the repossessed vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-01/CT-9091. 18. After the filing of I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025, the respondents herein-writ petitioners filed I.A.No.4 of 2025, on 16.08.2025, invoking the provisions under Rule 150 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 , seeking an order directing the appellants herein to consider the request made by them and give back the possession of the secured asset, subject to the condition that they shall pay the overdue amount and regular EMIs on or before 30.08.2025. Along with the said interlocutory application, they have placed on record Annexure B possession notice dated 05.08.2025 issued by the Bank, along with Panchanama evidencing repossession of the vehicle on 05.08.2025. 19. Along with the said interlocutory application, they have placed on record Annexure B possession notice dated 05.08.2025 issued by the Bank, along with Panchanama evidencing repossession of the vehicle on 05.08.2025. 19. On 27.08.2025, the learned Single Judge passed an order in I.A.No.4 of 2025, whereby it was ordered that, if the writ petitioners pay the overdue amount of Rs.2,65,906.41 within 20 days from the date of order, the possession of the vehicle shall be restored to them, which shall be subject to the condition that the regular EMIs, if any, payable by the writ petitioners, after 27.08.2028 shall also be paid by them on the due dates, without fail. By the order dated 27.08.2025, the learned Single Judge permitted the writ petitioners to approach the Bank for one time settlement, if they so desire. The learned Single Judge made it clear that, if the writ petitioners commit any further default, after receiving possession of the vehicle as directed in the order dated 27.08.2025, they shall handover the vehicle to the authorised officer of the Bank. 20. In South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip [ (2023) 17 SCC 311 ] , in the context of the challenge made against the notices issued under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, the Apex Court reiterated the settled position of law on the interference of the High Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India in commercial matters, where an effective and efficacious alternative forum has been constituted through a statute. In the said decision, the Apex Court took judicial notice of the fact that certain High Courts continue to interfere in such matters, leading to a regular supply of cases before the Apex Court. The Apex Court reiterated that a writ of certiorari is to be issued over a decision when the court finds that the process does not conform to the law or the statute. In other words, courts are not expected to substitute themselves with the decision-making authority while finding fault with the process along with the reasons assigned. Such a writ is not expected to be issued to remedy all violations. When a Tribunal is constituted, it is expected to go into the issues of fact and law, including a statutory violation. In other words, courts are not expected to substitute themselves with the decision-making authority while finding fault with the process along with the reasons assigned. Such a writ is not expected to be issued to remedy all violations. When a Tribunal is constituted, it is expected to go into the issues of fact and law, including a statutory violation. A question as to whether such a violation would be over a mandatory prescription as against a discretionary one is primarily within the domain of the Tribunal. The issues governing waiver, acquiescence and estoppel are also primarily within the domain of the Tribunal. The object and reasons behind the SARFAESI Act are very clear as observed in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India [ (2004) 4 SCC 311 ] . While it facilitates a faster and smoother mode of recovery sans any interference from the court, it does provide a fair mechanism in the form of the Tribunal being manned by a legally trained mind. The Tribunal is clothed with a wide range of powers to set aside an illegal order, and thereafter, grant consequential reliefs, including repossession and payment of compensation and costs. Section 17 (1) of the SARFAESI Act gives an expansive meaning to the expression ‘any person’, who could approach the Tribunal. 21. In Naveen Mathew Philip [ (2023) 17 SCC 311 ] the Apex Court noticed that, in matters under the SARFAESI Act, approaching the High Court for the consideration of an offer by the borrower is also frowned upon by the Apex Court. A writ of mandamus is a prerogative writ. The court cannot exercise the said power in the absence of any legal right. More circumspection is required in a financial transaction, particularly when one of the parties would not come within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. When a statute prescribes a particular mode, an attempt to circumvent that mode shall not be encouraged by a writ court. A litigant cannot avoid the non-compliance of approaching the Tribunal, which requires the prescription of fees, and use the constitutional remedy as an alternative. When a statute prescribes a particular mode, an attempt to circumvent that mode shall not be encouraged by a writ court. A litigant cannot avoid the non-compliance of approaching the Tribunal, which requires the prescription of fees, and use the constitutional remedy as an alternative. In paragraph 17 of the decision, the Apex Court reiterated the position of law regarding the interference of the High Courts in matters pertaining to the SARFAESI Act by quoting its earlier decisions in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas [ (2003) 10 SCC 733 ] , United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon [ (2010) 8 SCC 110 ] State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [(2018) 3 SCC 85] , Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir [ (2022) 5 SCC 345 ] and Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu [ (2023) 2 SCC 168 ] wherein the said practice has been deprecated while requesting the High Courts not to entertain such cases. In paragraph 18 of the said decision, the Apex Court observed that the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are rather wide, but are required to be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances in matters pertaining to proceedings and adjudicatory scheme qua a statute, more so in commercial matters involving a lender and a borrower, when the legislature has provided for a specific mechanism for appropriate redressal. 22. As already noticed hereinbefore, in the judgment dated 01.04.2025 in W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025, while disposing of that writ petition with a direction to the Bank to accept repayment of the entire overdue amount of Rs.2,56,513/- along with any accrued interest, costs and charges from the respondents herein and regularise the loan account in the manner stated in paragraph 5 of that judgment, the respondents herein were directed to pay the regular EMIs/installments along with the installments for the overdue amount. In the said judgment it was made clear that in the event of default of any one installment, the Bank shall be entitled to proceed in accordance with law. 23. In the said judgment it was made clear that in the event of default of any one installment, the Bank shall be entitled to proceed in accordance with law. 23. The fact that the respondents herein have defaulted the payment of the installments in terms of the directions contained in paragraph 5 of the judgment dated 01.04.2025 in W.P.(C)No. 12280 of 2025 is not in dispute, since the averments in paragraph 4 of the statement of facts in W.P.(C)No.29526 of 2025 is to the effect that, even though they were regular in repaying the installment amount as per the judgment dated 01.04.2025 in W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025 and taking earnest efforts to see that payments are made in time, there happened to be some shortfall in the regular EMIs. The averments in paragraph 7 of the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.4 of 2025 is to the effect that in Annexure B possession notice dated 05.08.2025 issued under the provisions of Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 it is shown that the secured asset is subject to a charge for an amount of Rs.12,92,926.06, which is an arbitrary amount arrived without considering the payments made by the respondents herein. By the impugned order dated 27.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.4 of 2025, the respondents herein are directed to pay the overdue amount of Rs.2,65,906.41 within 20 days from the date of that order. Therefore, it is not in dispute that the petitioners defaulted payment of installments in terms of the directions contained in paragraph 5 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 01.04.2025 in W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025 and on account of that default, the appellants herein proceeded in accordance with the provisions under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder. Accordingly, the vehicle was repossessed based on Annexure B possession notice dated 05.08.2025, as evidenced by the panchanama which forms part of that document. Without challenging Annexure B possession notice and the repossession of the vehicle by the appellants herein, invoking the provisions under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the respondents herein have chosen to file I.A.Nos.2 to 4 of 2025 in W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025 seeking various reliefs. 24. Without challenging Annexure B possession notice and the repossession of the vehicle by the appellants herein, invoking the provisions under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the respondents herein have chosen to file I.A.Nos.2 to 4 of 2025 in W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025 seeking various reliefs. 24. In State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma [(1987) 2 SCC 179] , a decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants-respondents, the Apex Court held that no miscellaneous application could be filed in a writ petition which has been finally disposed of, in order to revive the proceedings in respect of subsequent events. If the respondent was aggrieved by the subsequent notice he could have filed a separate writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the validity of the notice, as it provided a separate cause of action to him. The respondent was not entitled to assail the validity of the notice before the High Court by means of a miscellaneous application in a writ petition which has already been decided. The High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application as no proceedings were pending before it. Therefore, the Apex Court held that the High Court committed error in entertaining the application made by the respondent, which was founded on a separate cause of action. When the proceedings stand terminated by the final disposal of the writ petition, it is not open to the High Court to reopen the same by means of a miscellaneous application in respect of a matter which provided a fresh cause of action. If this principle is not followed, there would be confusion and chaos and the finality of proceedings would cease to have any meaning. I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 were filed on 12.08.2025 and I.A.No.4 of 2025 was filed on 16.08.2025 in the said writ petition which has already been disposed of by the judgment dated 01.04.2025. 25. Though I.A.No.2 of 2025 filed in W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025 was one seeking an order directing the appellants herein to grant extension for a further period of two months to pay the defaulted amounts towards the vehicle loan account and to regularise the loan availed by the respondents herein, it is not in dispute that the vehicle was repossessed by the appellants herein based on Annexure B possession notice dated 05.08.2025. It is also not in dispute that the repossession of the vehicle was on account of the default committed by the respondents herein in payment of the monthly installments in terms of the directions contained in paragraph 5 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 01.04.2025 in W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025, since by the impugned order dated 27.08.2025, the learned Single Judge directed the respondents herein to pay the overdue amount of Rs.2,65,906.41 within 20 days from the date of that order. The respondents herein cannot maintain an interlocutory application in W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025, invoking the provisions under Rule 150 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 , seeking extension of time, in the absence of a challenge against Annexure B possession notice dated 05.08.2025 and the repossession of the vehicle by the appellants herein, since any order passed by the learned Single Judge in such an application would result in interference with the further proceedings initiated by the appellants herein, under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, on account of the default committed by the borrowers. Therefore, after the issuance of Annexure B possession notice and repossession of the vehicle, the respondents herein cannot file an interlocutory application in W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025, seeking extension of time, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Brahm Datt Sharma [ (1987) 2 SCC 179 ] , as it is a separate cause of action. 26. The relief sought for in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in W.P.(C)No. 12280 of 2025 filed by the respondents herein, on 12.08.2025, is an order directing the appellants herein not to initiate any steps for distress sale or cause damage to the repossessed vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-01/CT-9091. The relief sought for in I.A.No.4 of 2025 filed on 16.08.2025, is an order directing the appellants herein to consider the request made by the respondents herein and give back the possession of the secured asset, subject to the condition that they shall pay the overdue amount and regular EMIs on or before 30.08.2025. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Brahm Datt Sharma [ (1987) 2 SCC 179 ] the respondents herein-writ petitioners cannot maintain such interlocutory applications in W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025, after the issuance of Annexure B possession notice and repossession of the vehicle, as it is a separate cause of action. 27. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Brahm Datt Sharma [ (1987) 2 SCC 179 ] the respondents herein-writ petitioners cannot maintain such interlocutory applications in W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025, after the issuance of Annexure B possession notice and repossession of the vehicle, as it is a separate cause of action. 27. We notice that though impugned order dated 27.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge is one passed in I.A.No.4 of 2025 filed in W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025 seeking an order directing the appellants herein to consider the request made by the respondents herein and give back the possession of the secured asset, subject to the condition that they shall pay the overdue amount and regular EMIs on or before 30.08.2025, in the first paragraph of the impugned order the learned Single Judge has extracted the relief sought for in I.A.No.2 of 2025, i.e., extension of time to comply with the directions contained in the judgment dated 01.04.2025. Even if the impugned order dated 27.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge is treated as one passed in I.A.No.2 of 2025, the directions contained therein cannot be sustained, since we have already held that after the issuance of Annexure B possession notice and repossession of the vehicle, the respondents herein cannot file an interlocutory application in W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025, seeking extension of time, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Brahm Datt Sharma [ (1987) 2 SCC 179 ] , as it is a separate cause of action. In such circumstances, we find no reason to sustain the impugned order dated 27.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge and the writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the said order; however, without prejudice to the right of the respondents herein-writ petitioners to invoke the statutory remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal against Annexure B possession notice dated 05.08.2025 and repossession of the vehicle, by raising appropriate legal and factual contentions.