M.Seetharaman v. The State Bank Of India
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN and CMP(MD) Nos.3400 and 3401 of 2026 In CRP(MD) No.735 of 2026:- M.Seetharaman ... Petitioner vs.
The State Bank of India, rep by its Branch Manager, Rajapalayam Branch, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.
... Respondent PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the order and decree dated 12.12.2025 made in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in O.S.No.239 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Rajapalayam. In CRP(MD) No.736 of 2026:- M.Seetharaman ... Petitioner vs.
1/8
The State Bank of India, rep by its Branch Manager, Rajapalayam Branch, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.
... Respondent PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the order and decree dated 12.12.2025 made in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in O.S.No.237 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Rajapalayam. In CRP(MD) No.737 of 2026:- M.Seetharaman ... Petitioner vs.
The State Bank of India, rep by its Branch Manager, Rajapalayam Branch, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.
... Respondent PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the order and decree dated 09.01.2026 made in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.239 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Rajapalayam. 2/8
In CRP(MD) No.738 of 2026:- M.Seetharaman ... Petitioner vs.
The State Bank of India, rep by its Branch Manager, Rajapalayam Branch, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.
... Respondent PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the order and decree dated 09.01.2026 made in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.No.239 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Rajapalayam. In CRP(MD) No.739 of 2026:- M.Seetharaman ... Petitioner vs.
The State Bank of India, rep by its Branch Manager, Rajapalayam Branch, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.
... Respondent PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the order and decree dated 09.01.2026 made in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.No.237 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Rajapalayam. 3/8
COMMON ORDER I heard Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu for the petitioner and Mr.N.Dilip Kumar for the respondent.
2.The learned Trial Judge has condoned the delay of 4442 days in O.S.No.237 of 2012 and the delay of 4493 days in O.S.No.239 of 2012 on condition that the second defendant/Civil Revision Petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the credit of O.S.No.237 of 2012 and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the credit of O.S.No.239 of 2012 respectively. He had granted time till 09.01.2026, by an order in both the suits dated 12.12.2025.
3.Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu urged that the condition that has been imposed is onerous and that the time granted is also very limited.
4/8
4.Insofar as the first part of the argument of Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu is concerned, I am not with him. The suit is for recovery of money presented by a Nationalized Bank in the year 2012. The suit had been decreed more than a decade ago. In pursuance thereof, the Nationalized Bank has also presented Execution Petitions seeking arrest of the judgment debtors. 5.The learned Judge has considered the interest of the second defendant as well as the interest of the bank and has condoned the delay on payment of Rs.3,000/- each in both the suits. That itself, in my view, shows that the learned Judge has been extremely merciful to the Civil Revision Petitioner.
6.In order to protect the interests of the bank, he has called upon the second defendant only to deposit the aforesaid amounts. He has not called upon him to pay the said amount to the bank, but only to the credit of the suits. If the amount is going to so lie, in case, the second defendant is able to convince the Court that he never stood as a Guarantor or that the Guarantee form is a forged one, as pleaded by Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu, he will be entitled to withdraw the said 5/8
amounts so deposited, together with any accrued interest. In the event of the suits being dismissed, at least the bank would recover a portion of the amount decreed. Hence, that portion of the order need not be revised.
7.I am persuaded by the submissions of Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu that the time of one month to deposit a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- cannot said to be sufficient. Hence, while confirming the order of the learned Trial Judge in condoning the delay and imposition of cost, the time granted by him till 09.01.2026 is extended till 28.04.2026. Insofar as the revisions challenging the order seeking to send the admitted signatures along with the disputed signatures for forensic examination are concerned, once the ex parte decree is set aside, the Civil Revision Petitioner can always file the said applications after presenting his written statement. 8.These Civil Revision Petitions are partly allowed only with respect to the date of deposit from 09.01.2026 to 28.04.2026. 9.Call on 29.04.2026 'for reporting compliance'. The learned Subordinate Judge at Rajapalayam shall issue the challans for the 6/8
Civil Revision Petitioner/second defendant to comply with this order immediately on production of a web copy of this order before him. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Index :Yes / No 27.03.2026 Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No mm Note :
Issue order copy on 30.03.2026 To The Subordinate Judge, Rajapalayam.
7/8
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
mm 27.03.2026 8/8