CRP.No. 2743 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10.08.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

CRP.No. 2743 of 2023

and

CMP.No. 16912 of 2023

Fazal Ahamed A.

.. Petitioner

Versus

M/s. ICICI Bank Limited

Represented by its Manager,

Mr. Dhanasekar B.,

Having Office at

No. 1, Cenatoph Road

Teynampet,

Chennai-600 018.

.. Respondent

Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, prays to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated

27.06.2023 made in I.A.No. 1 of 2022 in O.S.No. 1167 of 2022 on the

file of the XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

For Petitioner : Mr.A. Thameem Mohideen

---

1/8

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

CRP.No. 2743 of 2023

ORDER

This Revision has been filed seeking to set aside the fair and

decreetal order dated 27.06.2023 made in I.A.No. 1 of 2022 in O.S.No.

1167 of 2022 on the file of the XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court,

Chennai.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

records.

3. The respondent/Bank/Plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No. 1167

of 2022 before the XVII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, against the

defendant for recovery of money. The petitioner/defendant has contested

the suit by filing written statement denying all the averments made in the

plaint. During the pendency of the suit proceedings, the

petitioner/defendant filed IA.No. 1 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 11(a)

and (d) of CPC., seeking to reject the plaint as it does not disclose the

cause of action, the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be

2/8

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

CRP.No. 2743 of 2023

barred by law of limitation and striking off the entire pleading in the

plaint. The said petition was dismissesd, and aggrieved by the said order

present CRP is filed.

4. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the respondent/Bank

filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of loan. When PW1 was

cross examined, at that time, the petitioner/defendant has filed the above

application to reject the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff has stated

in the plaint, the total EMI period was 53 but as per Ex.A1 application,

the tenure was only 48 months and also the interest was 13.01% per

annum. It is totally contra to the Ex.A1 and it would also submit that the

plaint had no cause of action as the acceptance and sanction of the loan

in I.A.No. 1 of 2022 in O.S.No. 1167 of 2022 was not communicated to

the petitioner. Therefore, the original suit itself is a vexatious one. It is

also stated that the respondent has not paid lastly on 05.11.2020. Hence,

the suit is hits by law of limitation. It is also stated that the claim made

by the respondent/plaintiff is not in accordance with the statement of

account filed by the Bank.

3/8

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

CRP.No. 2743 of 2023

5. On the other hand, the application was resisted by the Bank

contending that the tenure of the loan was extended due to COVID-19

and the petitioner/defendant was lastly paid on 05.11.2020 and the suit

has cause of action and it is not barred by law of limitation.

6. It is seen from the above, the main points raised by the

petitioner/defenant that the tenure of loan and the interest were wrongly

calculated against the Ex.A1 i.e., 48 months instead of 53 months and the

interest as 14.51%. The respondent/Bank has contended that due to

Covid-19, the tenure was extended to 53. Whether the tenure was

extended due to Covid-19 or not has to be decided after trial as it is the

disputed facts. It is also seen that the petitioner/defendant had executed

necessary documents and proof in favour of the respondent/Bank. The

respondent/Bank has not filed any letter as to communication of

acceptance and sanction of loan to the petitioner/defendant at present but

the respondent/Bank had stated in the plaint that they have proof. The