High Court · 2025

A.No.3656 & 3657 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 12.09.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABALA.Nos.3656 & 3657 of 2025inC.S.No.291 2020Dr.Navin Noushad... Applicant in both applicationsVs.Dr.P.N.Sathiyamoorthy ... Respondent in both applicationsPRAYER in A.No.3656 of 2025: Application filed under Order IV Rule 8 of O.S Rules r/w. Order XXXVI Rule 1 of CPC, 1908, to issue subpoena to the Branch Manager, Jawahar Nagar Branch, Kolathur for production of the original pay in slips/deposit slips for the cash deposits and original cheques transaction as indicated in the schedule hereto and adduce oral evidence in this regard.PRAYER in A.No.3657 of 2025: Application filed under Order IV Rule 8 of O.S Rules r/w Order XXXVI Rule 1 of CPC, 1908, to issue subpoena to the Branch Manager, Clock Tower Branch, Royapettah for production of the original cheque bearing Cheque No.896957 and 601016 issued by the applicant/defendant in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and the pay in slip/deposit slip for the cheque Page 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.No.3656 & 3657 of 2025No.896965 and 601016 presented through Indian Bank, Clock Tower Branch and deposited to the plaintiffs account in Indian Bank Clock Tower Branch bearing A/c.No.5553000150, as indicated in the schedule hereto and adduce oral evidence in this regard.For Applicantin both applications: Ms.Shanmitha. SFor Respondentin both applications: Mr.K.Bijay Sunder COMMON ORDERThese applications have been filed by the applicant to issue subpoena to the Manager, Indian Bank, Jawahar Nagar Brach, Kolathur and the Manager, Indian Bank, Clock Tower Branch, Royappetah for production of original pay in slips/deposit slips for the cash deposits and original cheques transaction and to adduce oral evidence. 2. According to the applicant, the applicant is the defendant in the main suit and the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money based on the business transactions between them. The entire case of the plaintiff is completely fabricated and incorrect. In fact, the applicant/defendant had given loans to the respondent/plaintiff. However, the respondent/plaintiff in the plaint completely manipulated Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.No.3656 & 3657 of 2025and misrepresented several transactions and several large value amounts transferred by the applicant/defendant to the respondent's/plaintiff's bank account have been omitted. Therefore, in order to prove the case of the applicant/defendant, the entire accounts have to be called for from the bank. 3. The further case of the applicant/defendant is that originally, the suit was filed as a summary suit and the applicant's/defendant's application seeking leave to defend was allowed and thereafter, the applicant/defendant filed a written statement and P.W.1 was examined and thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff had only produced the person specific bank statements between the plaintiff and defendant and not the bank statement for the entire period. During the time of the cross-examination of the respondent/plaintiff, the applicant/defendant posed a question in respect of entire bank statement and thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff had preferred three applications seeking leave to file 20 documents, including the bank statements, to issue subpoena to the Manager, Indian Bank, Jawahar Nagar Branch, Kolathur, for production of original cheques issued by the respondent/plaintiff drawn in favour of the applicant/defendant and to issue subpoena to the Manager, Indian Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.No.3656 & 3657 of 2025Bank, Clock Tower Branch, Royappettah for production of original cheques issued by the respondent/plaintiff drawn in favour of the applicant/defendant. This Court also allowed the applications for issuance of subpoena for production of documents and granted leave to file additional documents and the statement of accounts of the plaintiff with Indian Bank, Clock Tower Branch, Royappetah for the period from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018 was marked as Ex.P24, but it does not reflect the entire bank transactions viz., bank deposits and cheque deposits transactions. In several cash deposit and cheque deposit transactions, the name of the depositor and details of deposit are not reflected. Further, the applicant/defendant issued cheques to the respondent/plaintiff through Indian Bank, Clock Tower Branch, Royappetah for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- dated 19.12.2017 and Rs.5,00,000/- dated 23.02.2018 and these transactions have been suppressed. Therefore, the respective Branch Manager of Indian Bank have to be examined by summoning all the bank statements.4. According to the respondent/plaintiff, there are bank transactions between the applicant/defendant and the respondent/plaintiff. The applicant/defendant borrowed money as loan Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.No.3656 & 3657 of 2025from the respondent/plaintiff on several occasions. Therefore, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money as against the applicant/defendant and the same is pending. The bank statement of the respondent/plaintiff was marked as a document. The Branch Managers of Indian Bank, Royapettah and Kolathur Branch, have already been examined as witnesses on the side of the respondent/plaintiff and the said witnesses were also cross-examined by the applicant/defendant. Thereafter, again, now, the applicant/defendant filed instant applications to issue subpoena to the same witnesses. Since already the witnesses were examined on the side of the respondent/plaintiff and the same witnesses were also cross-examined by the applicant/defendant, once again, they need not be examined as defendant's side witnesses by issuing subpoena. 5. Already, the applicant filed the bank statements. The defendant had not admitted the loan transactions and even according to the defendant, respondent/plaintiff borrowed money and the respondent/plaintiff has to pay money to the applicant/defendant. But there is no counter claim filed by the applicant/defendant and without any prayer in counter claim, the transactions between the applicant and Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.No.3656 & 3657 of 2025the defendant will no way be helpful to decide this case. If the applicant admits the receipt of amount from the plaintiff and he pleads that he had already repaid the amount, then it is essential for the defendant to prove his case regarding the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant. Whereas according to the plaintiff, there are some loan transaction and the applicant/defendant failed to repay the amount. Therefore, it is the duty of the plaintiffs to prove his case by summoning the bank managers and by filing the bank statement. For that the respondent/plaintiff already examined the Bank Managers as P.W-2 and P.W-3 and once again, the Bank managers may not be examined. Therefore, these applications are liable to be dismissed.6. This Court heard both sides and perused the records.7. These applications have been filed to issue subpoena to the Bank Managers for the effect of the transactions by producing the statement of the accounts of the plaintiff. Already the plaintiff has produced the statement of accounts and it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove his case by examining the witnesses and producing documents. Already the plaintiff had produced some documents. It is the case of the Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.No.3656 & 3657 of 2025applicant/defendant that there are some transactions and as per the transactions, the plaintiff has to pay some amount to the defendant, but there is no counter claim to recover the said money. While so, the available documents have to be produced by the plaintiff to prove his case as to how much amount is paid to the defendant and how much he has to pay.8. The defendant totally denied the receipt of money from the plaintiff, whereas his defence is that the plaintiff only borrowed the money. Therefore, summoning the bank managers as witnesses to prove the transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant, has no relevance. However, already the said bank branch managers have been examined as plaintiff's side witnesses and they were elaborately cross-examined by the defendant and thereafter, now the applicant cannot once again examine the same witnesses on the side of the defendant. Once the plaintiff had examined some witnesses, the same witnesses cannot be examined on the side of the defendant. If at all, the plaintiff want to cross-examine the witnesses his remedy is to recall the witnesses for further cross-examination. Here, the defendant to disprove the case of the plaintiff, they want to examine the witnesses. Even according to the Page 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.No.3656 & 3657 of 2025defendant, the deposits were made by way of cheques and money in the account of plaintiffs which so the petitioner/defendant has to explain as to for what purpose the said amounts were deposited. Even assuming that those amounts were deposited by the defendant, and the plaintiff has to repay the said amount no any claim made by the defendant, but the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money. Further, no counter claim was filed by the defendant for refund of money from the plaintiff. Therefore, summoning of witnesses is an unnecessary one and the applications have no merits and are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, these applications are dismissed.12.09.2025dhIndex: Yes/NoInternet: Yes/NoPage 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.No.3656 & 3657 of 2025P.DHANABAL. J.dhA.Nos.3656 & 3657 of 202512.09.2025Page 9 of 9