CRP/5911/2026 of R.Lalitha Vs Canara Bank on 29 September 2026

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2026 in O.S.No.6521 of 2022 dated 13.07.2026, wherein the application filed by the petitioner/first defendant under Order XVI Rule 1(2) CPC to issue subpoena to some of the officials and to direct them to produce relevant certificates and documents issued at the time of sanctioning of the loan, came to be rejected by the Court below.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and carefully perused the materials available on record. This Court also went through the order passed by the Court below.

3. The first respondent is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.6521 of 2022 seeking for the relief of recovery of money along with interest against the petitioner. The cause of action for filing the suit is that the petitioner had availed loan by pledging jewels and ultimately, the loan amount was not repaid and the jewels pledged were found to be not genuine and hence, the suit was filed for recovery of money.

4. The issues were framed and examination of witnesses commenced and the Bank Manager was examined as PW-1. He was subjected to elaborate cross- examination by the petitioner. The second defendant in this case was the Gold Appraiser and he is said to have died during the pendency of the suit.

5. The petitioner had availed the loan from Syndicate Bank and had pledged the jewels and at a later point of time, the Syndicate Bank amalgamated with the Canara Bank and the suit has been instituted by the Canara Bank for recovery of money.

6. The petitioner filed the application in I.A.No.3 of 2026 in O.S.No.6521 of 2022 on the ground that PW-1, during cross-examination, stated that he was not in-charge at the time of re-appraisal of the gold and he was not able to answer as to when the locker was opened and when the re-appraisal of the gold was made and the relevant documents were also not produced before the Court. Under these circumstances, the petitioner wanted to issue subpoena to the concerned officials to produce all the relevant records to establish that the petitioner had properly pledged the jewels and it was properly appraised and the loan was sanctioned and therefore, the allegation made against the petitioner as if the gold pledged was not genuine, is not sustainable.

7. The Court below, while dealing with this application, came to the conclusion that summoning of the officials will not in any way help the petitioner since they will not be able to answer as to why the gold was not found to be genuine.

8. In the considered view of this Court, the petitioner has exhaustively cross-examined PW-1 and had sought for relevant records regarding the certificates issued by the Appraiser, Manager and Auditors. These documents are required by the petitioner to establish that the gold was genuinely pledged at Syndicate Bank and the petitioner was not aware as to what happened during the process of amalgamation when Syndicate Bank was amalgamated with Canara Bank. The petitioner has taken all efforts to establish that genuine gold was in fact pledged at the time of availing the loan and it was properly appraised and only thereafter, the loan was sanctioned. In the light of this stand, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to prove their case and issuing subpoena to the officials, who are involved at the time of amalgamation, will not in any way help the Court in determining the stand that has been taken by the bank that the gold pledged was not genuine. Hence, without prejudice to the order passed by the Court below, the specific stand taken by the petitioner/plaintiff will have to be independently considered in the light of the documents relied upon by both sides and also answers that were given by the Bank Manager, who was examined as PW-1.

9. In the light of the above discussion, there is no need for interfering with the order passed by the Court below and the Court below shall proceed further with the suit on its own merits and in accordance with law and dispose of the suit in O.S.No.6521 of 2022 as expeditiously as possible. This Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. 29-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gm/aj To The XVIII Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai.

N.ANAND VENKATESH J. gm/aj Civil Revision Petition No.5911 of 2026 29-09-2026