IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 19.09.2008 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice S.RAJESWARAN Rev. Appln. Nos.112 of 2003 in C.R.P.(PD) No.551 of 2002 ICICI Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Vice President Branch Head, R.H. Road branch, Chennai 600 004. ... Petitioners Vs. 1. G.Karthik 2. Champa Karthik ... Respondents This Review application has been filed under Section 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. against the order dated 08.08.2003 passed by this court dismissing the Civil Revision petition in C.R.P. No.551 of 2002. For Petitioner : Mr.Chockalingam For Respondents : Mr.Chandrasekar ***** O R D E R This Review application has been filed by the petitioner/ICICI Bank to review the order passed by this court on 08.08.2003 dismissing the Civil Revision petition in C.R.P. No.551 of 2002. 2. Notice was ordered by this court on 26.11.2004 and the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Review applicant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. I have also gone through the documents filed in support of their submissions. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Review applicant would contend that the Civil Revision petition was dismissed only on the basis of the statement of accounts produced by the respondents without full particulars for effective adjudication. According to him, RBI Guidelines pertaining to Non Performing Assets and writing-off of Non Performing Assets were not brought to the attention of this court while disposing of the Civil Revision petition. The statement of accounts produced before this court in the Civil Revision petition, by the Bank was prepared in accordance with the guidelines issued by RBI. That statement of accounts produced before this court ought not have been considered in the manner considered by this court while disposing of the Civil Revision petition. 5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, 'NIL' balance shown in the statement of accounts reflects the outstanding balance of the borrower, which is fictional since the Bank merely follows the RBI guidelines. Therefore, according to him, orders passed by this court in Civil Revision petition is liable to be reviewed as the same was dismissed only on the basis of the statement of accounts which is not true. Hence, the above Review application has been filed for the aforesaid relief. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that only on the basis of the documents produced by them and verified by the Officer of the bank, this court passed the order on 8.8.2003 dismissing the Civil Revision petition. Therefore, no case has been made out to review the order dt.8.8.2003 and what is attempted by the petitioner is only an appeal under the guise of review. 6. I have considered the rival submissions carefully. 7. It is the case of the Review applicant that the statement of account which was produced by the respondents before this court shown as 'NIL' which is not true and it is only an internal document of the petitioner bank. There is substantial amount due from the respondents for which a suit has been filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment reported in 2006(5) SCC 302 (Salim Akbarali Nanji Vs Union of India and others) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "9. ........... write-off is an internal accounting procedure to clean up the balance sheet of the Bank. Such write-off is restored to even in cases where the Bank has not exhausted all the avenues for recovery of dues. Such write-off does not affect the right of the Bank to proceed against the borrowers to collect the dues. The legal proceedings initiated by the Bank to recover the loans or to enforce the security against the borrowers may continue. The write-off does not bar the Bank from following up recoveries." Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Bank would submit that 'NIL' balance shown in the statement of account is written-off and not actually 'NIL'. Hence, he adds that the Bank can proceed against the respondents for recovery of its dues. 8. I find from the order which is sought to be reviewed here that the learned Judge has observed that the statement produced by the respondents would show that the balance payable by the respondents is 'NIL', whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner Bank would contend that 'NIL' is not true and it is only written-off. 9. Be as it may, I find that if it is to be taken as written-off as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner Bank, then the rights of the petitioner Bank to proceed against the respondents for recovery is still open. The learned Judge has only observed that in view of the statement produced by the respondents/defendants which is admitted by the Manager that it is not the forged document, the Bank has not made out a case for attachment of the property. The learned Judge has himself observed that only at the time of trial, the parties can adduce evidence as to whether the liability of the respondents is proved or not. 10. Therefore, I do not find any ground to review the order. 11. In the result, the Review application is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. 19.09.2008 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No vaan S.RAJESWARAN,J vaan Rev.Appln.Nos.112 of 2003 in C.R.P.(PD) No.551 of 2002 Dated: 19.09.2008 Dated:19.09.2008