Y.Rajendra Kumar vs Indian Bank

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 5623 of 2026
and CMP.No.24266 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA010750922026}
1.Y.Rajendra Kumar
2.Y.J.Vijayakumar
D.Chinnu (Since deceased)
3.D.Ravi Kumar
4.Rani
..petitioners(s)
Vs
Indian Bank
No.10, Harihara Complex,
Ooty Main Road, Coonoor,
Rep. by its Senior Manager,
Shri N.Krishnaraja,
S/o. Natesan
..Respondent(s)
Prayer : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order and Fair order dated
05.12.2025 passed in RP No.09 of 2025 in IA No.340 of 2019 in OS No.67 of
2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Coonoor, Nilgiris and direct to return the
original documents with conditions.
For petitioners(s): V.Ravi
__________
Page1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:34 pm )

For Respondent(s): Mr.Rajendran Raghavan
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed
by the trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioners seeking
return of the documents under Order XIII Rule 9 of CPC.

2. The respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of money based on
mortgage debt against the petitioners’ predecessor in interest. In the said suit, a
preliminary decree was passed in favour of the respondent. Thereafter, an
application has been filed in I.A.No.340 of 2019, seeking passing of final
decree. In the meantime, the respondent claimed that the loan account had been
transferred in favour of the company called “Reliance Asset Reconstruction
Company Limited”. Thereafter, the respondent/Bank had not pressed the suit.
Therefore, the petitioners filed the instant application seeking return of title
documents which were marked by the respondent. The said application was
dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come
before this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that
__________
Page2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:34 pm )

the petitioners only seeking return of their title documents deposited with the
respondent. Since the suit for recovery of money based on mortgage was not
pressed by the respondent, the petitioners are entitled to return of the
documents.
4. Order XIII Rule 9 of CPC, reads as follows:
9. Return of admitted documents.
(1) Any person, whether a party to the suit or not, desirous of receiving
back any document produced by him in the suit and placed on the
record shall, unless the document is impounded under rule 8, be
entitled to receive back the same:
(a) where the suit is one in which an appeal is not allowed, when
the suit has been disposed of, and
(b) where the suit is one in which an appeal is allowed, when the
Court is satisfied that the time for preferring an appeal has
elapsed and that no appeal has been preferred or, if an appeal
has been preferred, when the appeal has been disposed of :
Provided that a document may be returned at any time earlier
than that prescribed by this rule if the person applying
therefore:
(a) delivers to the proper officer for being substituted for the
__________
Page3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:34 pm )

original,-
(i) in the case of a party to the suit, a certified copy, and
(ii) in the case of any other person, an ordinary copy which has
been examined, compared and certified in the manner mentioned
in sub-rule (2) of rule 17 of Order VII , and
(b) undertakes to produce the original, if required to do so:
Provided also, that no document shall be returned with, by force
of the decree, has become wholly void or useless. 
(2) On the return of a document admitted in evidence, a receipt shall be given
by the person receiving it.
5. A perusal of the above provision would make it clear that any person,
whether he is party to the suit or not desirous of receiving back the document
produced by him in the suit can make an application under the said provision.
A person is not entitled to maintain an application under this provision to get
back document marked by opposite party or other person.
6. In the case on hand, the documents sought to be received by the
petitioners, were not marked by the petitioners, admittedly those documents
were marked by the respondent. The documents sought to be received by the
__________
Page4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:34 pm )

petitioners are title documents deposited by the petitioners with the respondent.
In order to prove the mortgage debt, the respondent bank marked those
documents and obtained a preliminary decree. Now the final decree application
filed by the respondent bank has not been pressed on the ground that it
rd
transferred the loan account to 3 party asset reconstruction company. When
the documents are not marked by the petitioners and marked by the respondent,
the petitioners are not entitled to get the same by filing an application under
Order XIII Rule 9 of CPC. The application filed by the petitioners is not at all
maintainable and hence I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned
order passed by the trial Court.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by relying on the
judgment of G.Madhusudan Rao Vs. Ammireddy Srinivas Reddy reported in
2025 SCC OnLine TS 684 , submits that the application is maintainable. A
perusal of the above said judgment would indicate that on the facts of the said
case, the dispute between the parties was settled and entire amount was paid by
the defendant therein to the plaintiff. In the case on hand, the petitioners does
not discharge the mortgage debt and the mortgage debt have been simply
transferred to another company. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable
to the petitioners in the said case.
8. In the light of the discussion made earlier, this Civil Revision Petition
__________
Page5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:34 pm )

stands dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioners to explore the other
remedies available to them under law. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
10-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
ub
To
1. The Subordinate Court, Coonoor,
Nilgiris.
__________
Page6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:34 pm )

S.SOUNTHAR, J.
ub
CRP No.5623 of 2026
10-11-2026
__________
Page7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:34 pm )