Madras High Court
The Secretary vs C.Raghu ... 1St on 13 June, 2025
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Rev.Aplw.No. 55 of 2025
The Secretary
Vellore Central Co-operative Bank
Kancheepuram Road
Panapakkam, Nemili Taluk
Ranipet – 631 052. ... Applicant/3rd Respondent
Vs
1. C.Raghu ... 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2. The Chairman
National Handicapped Finance and Development Corporation
98 MG + 2QX, Sector 12
Faridabad, Haryana – 121007.
3. The Manager
TNSC National Handicapped Finance and Development
Corporation
Angappa Naicken Street,
Parrys Corner, Chennai – 600 001.
... 2nd and 3rd Respondents/1st and 2nd respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:17:59 pm )
PRAYER: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rules 1 & 2 read
with 114 of CPC, to review the order dated 16.12.2024 in W.P.No. 33088
of 2024.
***
For applicant : Mr. L.P.shanmugasundaram
For 1st Respondent : Mr. U.Poushali
ORDER
This review application has been filed by the third respondent in the
Writ Petition seeking review of an order dated 16.12.2024. The order
dated 16.12.2024 is extracted in entirety:-
“The Writ Petition has been filed in the
nature of a Mandamus seeking a direction
against the respondent to consider a
representation dated 07.10.2024 given by the
petitioner herein.
2. The petitioner had mortgaged a property
at Punnai Village, Nemili, measuring 0.42.5 area,
1.05 cent at S.No. 113/1 by document No. 2914 of
2005 registered in the Sub Registrar Office at
Arakonam and had obtained NDFDC loan from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:17:59 pm )
the Vellore District Central Cooperative Bank/
the third respondent herein for a sum of
Rs.95,000/- on 22.05.2009. It carries 6% interest.
The petitioner received a letter that he is due and
liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,40,240/-. The
petitioner is a visually handicapped person and
he is also unemployed. His wife suffered brain
stroke and both her leg and hand are paralyzed.
It was under those circumstances that he claims
waiver of atleast the interest portion.
3. The learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the third respondent stated on
instructions received that if the petitioner pays
the principle amount, then the interest portion
could be waived.
4. The petitioner may endeavour to pay the
principle amount of Rs.95,000/- in one instalment
to the third respondent. Time is granted for
effecting such payment till 31.01.2025. If that is
paid on or before 31.01.2025, a direction is given
to the third respondent to waive the interest
component completely.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:17:59 pm )
5. With the above direction, this Writ
Petition stands disposed of. No order as to
costs.”
2. Thereafter, the Writ Petitioner had also filed Contempt Petition No.
538 of 2025 complaining that when he tendered the principal amount of
Rs.95,000/-, there was refusal to receive the same.
3. Notice had been directed in the Contempt Petition and
representing the present writ petitioner/third respondent in the Writ
Petition, A.Dakshnamoorthi, Branch Manager of Vellore Central Co-
operative Bank, Kancheepuram Road, Panapakkam, Nemili Taluk,
Ranipet, appeared before the Court. He also filed an affidavit in the
contempt petition.
4. The only ground taken up seeking to review the order is the
observation of this Court that the learned Special Government Pleader,
who appeared for the review petitioner / third respondent in the Writ
Petition had stated on instructions received that if the writ petitioner pays
the principal amount then the interest may not be waived.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:17:59 pm )
5. It is contended that no such instructions had been given and that
the review petitioner/third respondent in the Writ Petition has no right or
authority to waive the interest portion.
6. With respect to the right or authority of the review petitioner/third
respondent in the Writ Petition to waive the interest portion, it is an issue
or a policy decision of the review petitioner and the Court can never
examine the same or determine the same. There could be waiver in the
certain instances. They could be a refusal in certain instances. Therefore,
there cannot be a uniform policy regarding the same.
7. The contention that the learned Special Government Pleader had
wrongly stated that if the petitioner pays the principal amount, then the
interest portion could be waived has to be rejected since that statement has
been reduced on the records of the Court.
8. In (1982) 2 SCC 463 [ State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas
Shrinivas Nayak and Another], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as
follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:17:59 pm )
“4. ......Matters of judicial record are
unquestionable. They are not open to doubt.
Judges cannot be dragged into the arena.
"Judgments cannot be treated as mere counters in
the game of litigation". Per Lord Atkinson in
Somasundaran v. Subramanian A.I.R. 1926 P.C.
136 We are bound to accept the statement of the
Judges recorded in their judgment, as to what
transpired in court. We cannot allow the statement
of the judges to be contradicted by statements at
the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. If the
judges say in their judgment that something was
done, said or admitted before them, that has to be
the last word on the subject. The principle is well
settled that statements of fact as to what
transpired at the hearing, recorded in the
judgment of the court, are conclusive of the facts
so stated and no one can contradict such
statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a
party thinks that the happenings in court have
been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is'
incumbent, upon the party, while the matter is still
fresh in the minds of the judges, to call attention
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:17:59 pm )
of the very judges who have made the record to
the fact that the statement made with regard to his
conduct was a statement that had been made in
error. Per Lord Buckmaster in Madhusudan v.
Chanderwati A.I.R. 1917 P.C. 30 That is the only
way to have the record corrected. If no such step
is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. ”
9. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had very
clearly stated that there could not be any argument questioning any record
made by the Court. If the Court had recorded that the learned Special
Government Pleader had made a particular statement, then it is to be
presumed that the learned Special Government Pleader had in fact made
that particular statement. In the instant case, on instructions, the learned
Special Government Pleader had made a particular statement which had
been recorded by the Court.
10. The stand of the review petitioner cannot be appreciated. The
learned Special Government Pleader had every authority to represent the
respondents in the Writ Petition and under that authority, had represented
the matter before the Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:17:59 pm )
11. It is not the case that any special privilige had been given to any
of the parties to the Writ Petition. The order had been passed only based
on the representation made. There is no error on the face of record. There
is no statement made that such representation was not made by the learned
Special Government Pleader. I am afraid that the Review Application
would not lie. The Review Application stands dismissed. No costs.
13.06.2025
(½)
Index:Yes/No
Web:Yes/No
vsg
Speaking order : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:17:59 pm )
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
vsg
13.06.2025
(½)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:17:59 pm )
