CRP/4262/2023 of G. VACHALA Vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 27 October 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2023 made in C.M.A.No.1 of 2020 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Vellore at Tirupathur, against the order and decretal order dated 11.03.2021 made in I.A.No.107 of 2019 in O.S.No.138 of 2018 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Vaniyambadi.

2. The revision petitioners herein, are the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.138 of 2018 and the appellants in C.M.A.No.1 of 2020.

3. The respondent-State Bank of India filed the said suit against the revision petitioners herein, for recovery of money and to direct the defendants to pay the suit amount of Rs.3,12,404/- to the plaintiff, with future interest from the date of realisation and for preliminary decree to create charge over the suit properties.

4. The facts of the Civil Revision Petition, are that the revision petitioners/defendants received the suit summons and entered appearance through an Advocate. When the said suit was posted for filing written statement, the first revision petitioner/first defendant had suffered from severe stomach pain and diarrhea from 31.12.2018 and they could not collect the receipts from the Bank for the payment made to the Bank by the revision petitioners towards the loan amount. Hence, the defendants could not file the written statement. The defendants were set ex-parte on 03.01.2019 and on ex-parte preliminary decree was also passed on 05.01.2022. Hence, the revision petitioners/defendants immediately filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC in I.A.No.107 of 2019 in O.S.No.138 of 2018 to set aside the order and decretal order passed by the Sub-Court, Vaniyambadi. The trial Court allowed the said I.A. with a condition to deposit 25% of the decretal amount, within one month. Since the revision petitioners could not deposit the amount as directed by the trial Court, I.A.No.107 of 2019 in O.S.No.138 of 2018, on the file of the Sub-Court, Vaniyambadi, was dismissed on 11.03.2021. As against the said order dated 11.03.2021, the Civil Revision Petitioners/defendants filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.1 of 2020 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Vellore at Thirupattur, against the order and decretal order of the Subordinate Judge,

Vaniyambadi, dated 11.04.2019 passed in I.A.No.107 of 2019 in O.S.No.138 of 2018. The said appeal was partly allowed on 10.02.2023 and the order and decretal order passed in I.A.No.107 of 2019 in O.S.No.138 of 2018, dated 11.04.2019 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Vaniyambadi, was modified to the effect with a direction to deposit 15% of the decretal amount, before 10.03.2023, and only then, the petition in I.A.No.107 of 2019 will stand allowed. As against the same, the revision petitioners/defendants have filed the present CRP on the ground that the trial Court and the appellate Court, without considering the merits of the defence raised by the revision petitioners, imposed a condition to deposit 25% and 15%, respectively, to allow the said ex-parte decree.

5. The respondent-SBI filed counter affidavit before this Court, denying the averments of the revision petitioners/defendants.

6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7. The Courts are empowered to direct the petitioner to deposit a part of the decretal amount as a condition for setting aside such a decree. But, the condition so imposed should be reasonable and the Court should not impose a harsh condition.

8. The trial Court, considering the nature of the suit, the factum of hypothecation of the properties by the revision petitioners and that there was no denial of obtaining loan, imposed a condition to deposit the amount of 25% of the decretal amount.

9. In the appeal, the appellate Court held that the conditional order to deposit 25% of the decree amount, is excessive and thereby, it was reduced to 15% and time was also granted to deposit the same, considering the reason afforded by the revision petitioners for their absence. The conditional order to deposit 15% of the decree amount is a reasonable one and not a harsh one.

10. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned discretionary order passed by the first appellate Court.

11. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 10.02.2023 passed by the III Additional District Court, Vellore at Thirupattur, in C.M.A.No.1 of 2020, are confirmed. The revision petitioners/defendants are granted time to deposit 15% of the decretal amount on or before 26.11.2026, failing which, I.A.No.107 of 2019 in O.S.No.138 of 2018 on the file of the Sub-Court, Vaniyambadi, will stand automatically dismissed, without any further reference to Court. There shall be no order as to costs in this Civil Revision Petition. Consequently, the miscellaneous petition is closed.

27.10.2026 Index: Yes/no Speaking Order: Yes/no Neutral Case Citation:Yes/no cs To

1. III Additional District Judge, Vellore at Thirupattur.

2. The Subordinate Judge, Vaniyambadi, Vellore District.

3. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN, J cs Pre-delivery Order in C.R.P.No.4262 of 2023 Order pronounced on 27.10.2026