Indian Bank vs Billy Graham

CRP No. 7026 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 7026 of 2026 and
CMP No.30247 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012521852026}
Indian Bank
Mylapore Branch,
No.21, North Mada Street,
Mylapore, Chennai 600004
Now transferred to Stressed Assets Management
Branch, No.55, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore,
Chennai-04.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Billy Graham, S/o. S.George Ratnam,
New No.4, Old No. 19, 6th Street
A Block, Anna Nagar East,
Chennai 600102
2. Annie Beaulah, W/o. Billy Graham,
New No.4, Old No. 19, 6th Street
A Block, Anna Nagar East,
Chennai 600102
3. M/s Vee U associates (P) Ltd rep by its Director
2nd Floor, No.73, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam,
Chennai 600024
__________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:36:53 pm )

CRP No. 7026 of 2026
4. K.L. Vasanthakumar
Flat No. 8, Thallam Garden,
New Avadi Road, Kilpauk,
Chennai 600010
5. R. Sankararama Subramanian
No. 8/1, Aziz Nagar,
1st Street, Kodambakkam,
Chennai 600024
6. T.S.Sankaran
No. 30, Kennedy 1st Street,
Mylapore, Chennai 600004
7. Vijayaraghavan
No. 3/272, 1st Street
Subramaniya Nagar,
Madipakkam, Chennai 600090
8. Sarma,
B.V.N no. 9, Dhamodaran Street,
Kellys, Chennai 600010
9. B. Ravishankar
E-1, 19/28, IIT Campus,
Chennai 600036
10.M.Ramesh
Flat No. 606, 1st Floor,
Tiruveni Apartments, Berracah Road,
Kellys, Chennai 600010
11.B. Seetharam
No.9, Dharmodaran Street,
Kellys, Chennai 600010
__________
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:36:53 pm )

CRP No. 7026 of 2026
12.B. Bhuvaneswari
No.9, Dharmodaran Street,
Kellys, Chennai 600010
13.R.E. Balasubramanian
VGP Layout, No. 99,
Lenin Street, Uthandi,
Chennai 600119
14.C. Geeta,
L-302, Artlum, 23,
Kalashetra Road, Thiruvanmiyur,
Chennai 600041
15.C. Bhargavi,
L-302, Artlum, 23,
Kalashetra Road, Thiruvanmiyur,
Chennai 600041
16. C. Surender,
23, Kalashhetra Road,
Thiruvanmiyur,
Chennai 600041
17.Mani Thirumoorthy
No. 2 B, Topavan Complex
Karadimandal Road,
Next to KG MIII, Madampatti Village,
Coimbatore 641 010
18.K.L. Srinivasalu
No. 4 M, Mandira Apartment,
23 C, North Boag Road,
T. Nagar, Chennai 600017
19.N. Srikanth
No.44, Lakshminarayana Street
West Mambalam, Chennai 600033
__________
Page 3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:36:53 pm )

CRP No. 7026 of 2026
20.Arthur Taylor
No.19, Raja street,
Kalyani Nagar Kottivakkam,
Chennai 600004
21.Taylor Financial services,
1NC rep by Mr. Arthur Taylor
17130 Military Road,
Bennington, NE 68007 USA
22.Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd
Reliance Centre, North Wing,
6th Floor, Off Western Express Highway,
Santacruz East, Mumbai 400055.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC to set aside
the Order dated 1.9.2026 passed in I.A.No. 12 of 2026 in O.S.No. 6791 of 2021
by the XIX Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.Sundar Rajan
For Respondent(s): Ms.Rekha
ORDER
This civil revision petition has been file challenging the order passed by
the Trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/1st defendant
seeking to condone the delay of 70 days in filing an application to set aside the
exparte decree dated 28.04.2025.
__________
Page 4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:36:53 pm )

CRP No. 7026 of 2026
2. The respondents 1 and 2/plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner and
other respondents seeking declaration that guarantee given by the 1st
respondent/1st plaintiff to the petitioner bank/1st defendant and the equitable
mortgage by deposit of title deeds under the memorandum dated 20.12.2006
executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the petitioner bank /1st defendant stood
discharged and for consequential relief, directing the petitioner bank/1st
defendant to deliver the title deeds of the suit property, by cancelling the
memorandum of equitable mortgage to the plaintiffs. They also sought for
other incidental reliefs. The said suit was decreed exparte on 28.04.2025. The
petitioner/1st defendant filed an application to set aside the exparte decree along
with a petition to condone the delay of 70 days in filing the above said
application. These applications were filed during August 2025. By the
impugned order, the Trial Court dismissed the applications. Aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner has come before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner by taking this Court to the
affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the condone delay petition would
submit that the suit was originally filed before the High Court and the petitioner
bank entered appearance and also filed an application to reject the plaint on the
ground that the suit was barred by the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.
Subsequently, the suit was transferred from the file of the High Court to the
__________
Page 5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:36:53 pm )

CRP No. 7026 of 2026
rd
City Civil Court. In the meantime, the loan account of the 3 respondent/2nd
nd
defendant was transferred to the 22 respondent company, which was arrayed
st
as the 21 defendant in the suit. It was submitted that the petitioner bank was
under genuine impression that the assignee of the loan account would conduct
the case and hence, the petitioner bank did not file a written statement. It is
further submitted that after receipt of legal notice dated 10.07.2025, the
petitioner bank came to know about the exparte decree passed against the
nd
petitioner and after verification of records, it came to light that the 22
respondent did not take any steps to contest the suit and allowed it to be decreed
exparte. The learned counsel vehemently contended that the petitioner failed to
file written statement and contest the case only on the bonafide impression that
the assignee of the loan would take care of the litigation and immediately after
acquiring knowledge about the exparte decree, the instant application has been
filed.
4. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs
would vehemently contend that apart from declaration regarding discharge of
the mortgage and prayer for return of title deeds, the respondents 1 and 2 also
prayed for a direction to all the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as
damages for loss of income to the plaintiffs in their business. In the light of the
said prayer in the suit, the averments made by the petitioner, as if it believed
__________
Page 6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:36:53 pm )

CRP No. 7026 of 2026
that the assignee of the loan would take care of the litigation is not acceptable.
nd
It is also submitted that the petitioner was aware that the 22 defendant/21st
defendant failed to contest the suit and hence, the applications filed by the
petitioner to set aside the exparte decree along with a delay of 70 days is not
condonable.
5. It is seen from the averments found in the condone delay petition that
initially the suit was filed before the High Court and the petitioner bank/1st
defendant entered appearance and filed an application to reject the plaint. It
appears that the application for rejection of the plaint was dismissed and the
petitioner bank immediately informed the assignee to take steps to file a
revision as against the said order. It is also asserted that by way of assignment
rd
agreement dated 28.09.2018, the loan account of the 3 respondent/2nd
nd
defendant was transferred in favour of the 22 respondent. The respondents 1
and 2/plaintiffs are guarantors and they mortgaged their property with the bank
rd
by deposit of title deeds as a surety to the loan facilities extended to the 3
nd
respondent. Since the loan account has been assigned in favour of the 22
respondent, the petitioner probably lost interest and failed to follow up the
litigation on the belief that the assignee would take care of the suit.
__________
Page 7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:36:53 pm )

CRP No. 7026 of 2026
6. Having regard to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of
the condone delay petition, nature of reliefs sought for in the plaint, length of
delay and facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to take a
liberal view of the matter and to give one chance to the petitioner bank to
contest the case on merits, however, by putting the petitioner bank on terms.
7. In the light of the above, this civil revision petition stands allowed on
condition the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five
thousand only) to the credit of O.S.No. 6791 of 2021 on the file of the XIX
Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, within a period of two weeks from
today. The respondents 1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw the said amount by
making an appropriate application before the Trial Court. In case, the petitioner
failed to deposit the said amount, within the stipulated time, this civil revision
petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to this
Court. On deposit of the amount as directed, this civil revision petition stands
allowed and the Trial Court is directed to the take up the application under
Order IX Rule 13 and dispose of it in accordance with law. There shall be no
order as to costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
05-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
MST
__________
Page 8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:36:53 pm )

CRP No. 7026 of 2026
To
The XIX Additional Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai.
__________
Page 9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:36:53 pm )

CRP No. 7026 of 2026
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
MST
CRP No. 7026 of 2026
05-11-2026
__________
Page 10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:36:53 pm )