S.a.Noorul Ameen Vs G.P.Veilumuthu

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 09.10.2025 passed in I.A.No.6/2025 in O.S.No. 5475/2023 on the file of this Court.

¶16

__________ Page 1 of 4

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP No. 6316 of 2025

Mr.P.Rajkumar

For Petitioner(s):

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioners seeking direction to the respondent/plaintiff to produce his statement of account in respect of bank account maintained by him with YES Bank, Nungambakkam Branch, bearing Account No.000551100006831 for the period from 01.01.2021 to 31.12.2021.

¶23

2.The respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of money against the petitioners. The suit was resisted by petitioners on the ground that entire amount of Rs.10 Lakhs borrowed by the petitioners was repaid together with interest through one Mukesh Preyan into the bank account of the respondent. When the respondent was examined as P.W.1, he also admitted that he is having account in YES Bank, Nungambakkam Branch. In these circumstances, the instant application has been filed by the petitioners seeking direction to the respondent to produce the statement of account relating to his bank account. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come before this Court.

¶24

__________ Page 2 of 4

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

CRP No. 6316 of 2025

¶27

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the statement

¶28

of account relating to the YES Bank account maintained by the respondent is very much essential to prove his essence and therefore, the Trial Court ought to have allowed the application.

¶29

4.If the petitioners feel some documents in their favour are in the custody of the respondent, it is for them to issue a notice to produce and if the same was not complied by the respondent, it is always open to the petitioners to mark the notice to produce before the Trial Court and argue for adverse inference. Instead of following the said procedure, the petitioners are not entitled to compel the respondent to produce his bank account. Further, it is not the case of the petitioners that they paid the amount directly into the bank account of the respondent. According to the petitioners, the amount was paid by them through another person. In such circumstances, I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.

¶30

5.Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶31

15-12-2025

¶32

Index: Yes/No GSA

¶33

__________ Page 3 of 4

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

CRP No. 6316 of 2025