Mr. Anthony Samy, vs The Chief Manager,

Rev.Aplw.No.262 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.11.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
Rev.Aplw.No.262 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011689892026}
Anthony Samy,
S/o Arokiyasamy
L-535 Police Colony, Navalpet,
Trichy - 620026
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Chief Manager,
State Bank of India
(Est. while State Bank of Trivancore)
Market Centre, HAPP Township
Trichy - 620025
2. Tamilselvan,
S/o Palaniyappan,
No. 06/846, Happy Nagar,
Poolangudi Colony, Trichy - 25
Respondent(s)
Prayer : Petition filed under Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 114 of
the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to review the order dated
22.06.2026 passed in W.P.No.4581 of 2026.
__________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 04:31:18 pm )

Rev.Aplw.No.262 of 2026
For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.E.Chelliah
Senior Counsel
For Mr.K.Ramalingam
For Respondent(s): Mr.B.Raghavalu Naidu for R1
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by
G.Arul Murugan, J)
The review application has been filed seeking to review the order
dated 22.06.2026 in W.P.No.4581 of 2026.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner contended
that since certain articles were damaged and some where missing,
possession of the same was not taken and since it is recorded in the
order that the articles were delivered, a review of the order is sought.
3. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that petitioner is
entitled to receive his articles in an undamaged state and since the
damage was caused by the bank, unless this Court reviews the order
and passes appropriate directions, petitioner would be aggrieved.
__________
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 04:31:18 pm )

Rev.Aplw.No.262 of 2026
4. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner and
considered the materials available on record.
5. The scope of review is well-settled as the review can be made
strictly within the parameters as set out under Order XLVII, Rule 1, read
with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Hon’ble Supreme
1
Court in Malleeswari v. K.Suguna settled the issue with the following
observations:
“15. It is axiomatic that the right of appeal cannot be
assumed unless expressly conferred by the statute or the rules
having the force of a statute. The review jurisdiction cannot
be assumed unless it is conferred by law on the authority or
the Court. Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC deal with
the power of review of the courts. The power of review is
different from appellate power and is subject to the following
limitations to maintain the finality of judicial decisions:
15.1 The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal
and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit
of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.
15.2 Review is not to be confused with appellate powers,
which may enable an appellate court to correct all
manner of errors committed by the subordinate court.
1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927
__________
Page 3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 04:31:18 pm )

Rev.Aplw.No.262 of 2026
15.3 In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of
CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to
be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be
remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be
allowed to be an appeal in disguise.
15.4 The power of review can be exercised for the
correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view.
Such powers can be exercised within the limits
specified in the statute governing the exercise of
power.
15.5 The review court does not sit in appeal over its own
order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible. It
constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a
judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be
altered. Hence, it is invoked only to prevent a
miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable
errors.”
6. In the light of the above dictum, we see that none of the
grounds raised in the present review fall within the parameters set out
under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
7. It is to be noted that in the earlier round of litigation,
petitioner filed W.P.No.29945 of 2025 seeking a direction to pay a sum
__________
Page 4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 04:31:18 pm )

Rev.Aplw.No.262 of 2026
of Rs.19.00 lakh towards loss occurred to him by respondents. This
Court, by order dated 10.10.2025, considering the fact that the bank
had resorted to all the proceedings under the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act, 2002 and had obtained an order from the Chief Judicial Magistrate
under Section 14 of the Act, pursuant to which possession was taken
and as the parties refused to take back the articles, the bank had
secured them in a rented premises, dismissed the writ petition with
certain observations. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the order read as
under:
“13. Therefore, we are of the view that the
petitioner's claim that petitioner was illegally deprived of
enjoyment of his properties and other articles required for his
profession is without any basis. Accordingly, no directions
can be issued in favour of the petitioner for payment of any
damages towards alleged loss. The prayer of the petitioner in
that regard is rejected.
14. However, the petitioner is at liberty to collect
all the articles from the rented premises, which is in the
possession of the respondent bank. For this purpose, the
petitioner shall appear before the Chief Manager, State Bank
of India, HAPP Branch, Trichy on 15.10.2025 at 10.30 a.m.
Upon such approach made, the bank shall depute an officer
who shall take the petitioner to the rented premises where the
__________
Page 5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 04:31:18 pm )

Rev.Aplw.No.262 of 2026
items have been kept and the petitioner shall be allowed to
remove all the items as per the inventories. A report of
panchanma shall also be prepared by the concerned bank
official in whose presence the petitioner shall remove the
items and the petitioner shall also acknowledge removal of
the items. The entire rent amount paid by the bank for the
rental premises where the items are kept shall also be
indicated to the petitioner and as soon as the petitioner pays
the amount to the bank, all the items may be allowed to be
removed by the petitioner. “
8. On the earlier occasion, this Court had recorded that the
parties would approach the bank on 15.10.2025 at 10.30 a.m.,
whereupon an inventory would be prepared, based on which the
articles would be taken back by petitioner. Admittedly, pursuant to the
directions issued, the parties appeared before the bank on 15.10.2025
and an inventory was prepared, which was duly signed by petitioner,
along with his counsel.
9. Subsequently, petitioner came up with another writ petition in
W.P.No.4581 of 2026 seeking a direction to award compensation for the
damaged goods and permission to occupy the second floor of the
house, as it was not covered by the auction. This Court, by order dated
__________
Page 6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 04:31:18 pm )

Rev.Aplw.No.262 of 2026
22.06.2026, finding that the relief sought cannot be allowed to be
agitated, as the issue raised by petitioner had already been considered
in the earlier order, dismissed the writ petition holding that the second
writ petition would be hit by res judicata and that the earlier order has
attained finality. In paragraph 6 of the said order, this Court observed
that petitioner had appeared before the bank, an inventory dated
15.10.2025 was prepared, and the articles were delivered, which was
acknowledged by petitioner.
10. It is now contended that even though such an inventory was
prepared, the bank has not signed and that petitioner has not taken
back the articles.
11. We are unable to accept the said contention of learned Senior
Counsel for petitioner. Particularly when, pursuant to the directions
issued by this Court, petitioner appeared before the bank, based on
which an inventory was prepared on 15.10.2025 and petitioner and his
counsel have signed the same, it is deemed that the parties on taking
of the inventory were entitled to take possession of the materials. The
bank is under no obligation to deliver the articles at the residence or
any place as required by petitioner. Once petitioner appeared before
__________
Page 7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 04:31:18 pm )

Rev.Aplw.No.262 of 2026
the bank and signed the inventory, it is for petitioner to take delivery
of the articles. It is only deemed that the articles are handed over to
petitioner on that date, and any failure to physically remove them does
not alter the position.
12. When the above issue was not raised in the second writ
petition, where the relief sought was only to award damages and
permit the petitioner to occupy the second floor and the said writ
petition was rejected, raising fresh issues in the present review
application is clearly impermissible.
13. Finding no merits, the review petition is dismissed.
14. The submissions learned counsel for the bank that even if
petitioner wants to take back the articles as per the inventory
prepared, it is always open to him to take, is recorded.

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
04.11.2026
__________
Page 8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 04:31:18 pm )

Rev.Aplw.No.262 of 2026
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kpl
To
The Chief Manager,
State Bank of India
(Est. while State Bank of Trivancore)
Market Centre, HAPP Township
Trichy - 620025
__________
Page 9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 04:31:18 pm )

Rev.Aplw.No.262 of 2026
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
(kpl)
Rev.Aplw.No.262 of 2026

04.11.2026
__________
Page 10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 04:31:18 pm )