Icici Bank Limited v. Vinay Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI CRP No. 1511 of 2026 & CRP NO. 1512 OF 2026 AND CMP NO. 7151 OF 2026 & CMP NO. 7152 OF 2026 ICICI Bank Limited Rep b y its Regional Head SMEAG-SLP, M. Chandrasekar, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai 058.
..Petitioner(s) in both C.R.P.s Vs 1.Vinay Kumar S/o. Rajendra Kumar Hirawat, No.10, Monitieth Lane, Egmore, Chennai 8.
2.D. Sathish S/o. Delli, No.34, Vasu Nagar, 3rd Street, Ponniammanmedu, Madhavaram, Chennai 110.
In the alternative at C/o. The Nite Naos, W743, Anna nagar West Extension, 3rd Floor, Near SBOA School, Chennai 040.
3. Jayakrishnan S/o. R. Srinivasan, No.14-A, Jamaliya Nagar, Chennai 012.
In the alternative at Suba Graha No.W266, C Sector, 13th Street, Anna Nagar West Extension, 2nd Floor,Chennai 040.
..Respondent(s) in both C.R.P.s
PRAYER IN CRP No. 1511 of 2026 Civil Revision Petition filed under Art. 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order of the fair and decreetal order of the learned Trial Judge in order dated 23.01.2026 passed in IA No.4 of 2024 in OS No.2236 of 2019 on the file of the VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. PRAYER IN CRP No. 1512 of 2026 Civil Revision Petition filed under Art. 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order of the fair and decreetal order of the learned Trial Judge in order dated 23.01.2026 passed in IA No.7 of 2025 in OS No.2236 of 2019 on the file of the VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. In both CRPs For Petitioner(s):
Mr.V.Suresh for M/s.Shivakumar and Suresh COMMON ORDER Challenging the impugned orders passed in I.A.Nos.4 of 2024 and 7 of 2025 in O.S.No.2236 of 2019 by the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the Revision Petitioner/3rd defendant preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
2. Since the relief is claimed challenging the order passed by the trial judge, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.
3. Before the trial court, the Revision Petitioner/3rd defendant filed applications to mark the document and also to file additional written statement. Both applications were dismissed by the trial judge holding that to receive additional written statement is highly belated one and other documents, which he wanted to produce is not relevant to the proceedings.
4. Considering the fact that the Revision Petitioner is the bank and according to their objections stated before the trial court that already the property was auctioned on issuing notice to the third party as per SARFAESI proceedings and as on date, the suit property is not belong to 1st and 2nd defendants as alleged by the plaintiff. So also, the alleged sale agreement between the parties is collusive one and not binding the auction proceedings. Therefore, to prove the same, they wanted to produce the document, but the trial judge has not given such opportunity. If the opportunity is not given to the Revision Petitioner to produce those documents, it will lead to miscarriage of justice, since already the property was sold under SARFAESI proceedings.
The reason assigned by the trial judge as such is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the findings rendered in I.A.Nos. 4 of 2024 and 7 of 2025 in O.S.No. 2236 of 2019 passed by the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is set aside. The Revision Petitioner is directed to file additional written statement and to adduce evidence. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petitions are closed.
13-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order N.B. : Issue order copy on 16.03.2026 RPP To The VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
T.V.THAMILSELVI J.
RPP CRP No. 1511 of 2026 & CRP NO. 1512 OF 2026 AND CMP NO. 7151 OF 2026,CMP NO. 7152 OF 2026, 13-03-2026