Madras High Court
OSA/169/2022 of Branch Manager Vs M.Balasubramanium on 9 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GK.MUTHUKUMAAR
OSA No. 169 of 2022 and CMP.No.10805 of 2022
CNR: {HCMA010660412022}
Branch Manager
Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd,
Purasaiwalkam Branch,
Door No.80-93, First Floor,
Palace Regancy, Purasawalkam High Road,
Chennai 600010.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. M.Balasubramanium
2. M.Sundaram
3. M.Muthuselvam
4. Rajalakshmi
5. S.Govindaraj
6. S.Karthik
7. G.Jaganathan
8. M.Vijayalakshmi
9. G.Jayakumar
10.B.Renuka
11.Branch Manager
Karur Vysya Bank,
Purasaiwalkam Branch,
Number 43, Gangadeeshwar Koil St,
Purasaiwalkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600084
12.Branch Manager
Lakshmi Vilas Bank,
Purasaiwalkam Branch,
75, Gangadeeshwar Koil St,
Purasaiwalkam, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu 600084
..Respondent(s)
Original Side Appeal filed under XXXVI Rule 1 of OS Rules to set aside the Order dated 12-04-2022 made in A.No.1621 of 2022 in C.S.No.362 of 2021 to the extent of imposing cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only).
For Appellant(s):
Mr.Jana Balaji
for Mr.V.Chandrasekaran
For Respondent(s):
Ms.P.Sharline
for Mr.R. Thiagarajan for R4 to R6
R1 to R3 – No appearance
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Sathish Kumar J.) Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.04.2022 imposing a costs of Rs.1,00,000/- while allowing the application for filing a written statement with a delay of 35 days, the present appeal has been filed.
2. The appellant has filed an application to seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement. The learned Single Judge though allowed the application for filing the written statement, imposed costs of Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence, this appeal.
3. Mr.Jana Balaji, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the delay has been properly explained in the affidavit filed in support of the application, however, the learned Single Judge has imposed a costs of Rs.1,00,000/- which is unreasonable and in fact, the appellants are not in a position to meet out the costs. Hence, seeks for allowing this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 6 and perused the materials placed on record.
5. Now, the point arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the costs imposed by the learned Single Judge is reasonable?
6. On perusal of the affidavit, we find that the application has been filed originally to condone the delay of 35 days in filing the written statement. It is well settled that as far as fixing of time-limit in filing of written statement in CPC as well as Madras High Court Original Side Rules, time-limit is held to be directory. Furthermore, considering the fact that the appellant is only a formal party where the money has been deposited, we are of the view that imposing costs against whom no relief is sought is also unreasonable. In such view of the matter, we are of the view that imposing costs of Rs.1,00,000/- is not proper and the cost alone is set aside.
7. Accordingly, this original side appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. (N.S.K.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.) 09-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dhk
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND GK.MUTHUKUMAAR, J. dhk OSA No. 169 of 2022 09-10-2026