Kerala High Court
WP(C)/35943/2019 of MURALEEDHARAN I.C. Vs KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK on 31 December 2019
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 10TH POUSHA, 1941 WP(C).No.35943 OF 2019(P) PETITIONER: MURALEEDHARAN I.C. AGED 56 YEARS S/O RAGHAVAN,MEGANA NIVAS,KUTTIKKATTOOR VILLAGE,KOZHIKKODE TALUK,KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT-673008.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 10TH POUSHA, 1941
WP(C).No.35943 OF 2019(P)
PETITIONER:
MURALEEDHARAN I.C.
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O RAGHAVAN,MEGANA NIVAS,KUTTIKKATTOOR
VILLAGE,KOZHIKKODE TALUK,KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT-673008.
RESPONDENT:
BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ
KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK
H.O.KOZHIKKODE,HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT MEDICAL
COLLEGE,HILL VIEW BUILDING,
OPPOSITE DENTAL COLLEGE,MEDICAL COLLEGE
ROAD,KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT-673008,REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.
SRI.P.C SASIDHARAN; SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON31.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
This Court by Ext.P1 judgment dated 22/02/2019,granted the petitioner the benefit to pay off theoutstanding amount in installments. It was made clearin the judgment that the directions are preemptive innature and the petitioner would not be granted anyfurther request for extension or modification and thehe would lose the benefit of the judgment and that hewould be foreclosed from challenging the proceedingstaken by the Bank.
2. Ext.P1 judgment stares at the petitioner. Thefindings in the judgment operate as resjudicata. I donot find any exceptional circumstances warranting thepetitioner to file a fresh writ petition on the samecause of action. The petitioner is bound to comply withthe directions contained in Ext.P1.
3. In light of the observations made above, I donot feel that fresh petition under article 226 ofConstitution of India can be entertained. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, however,without prejudice to the right of the petitioner toseek for an enlargement of the time schedule alreadyfixed in W.P(C).No. 4613 of 2019.
SJ
Sd/-
C.S.DIASJUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: