CRP/6397/2026 of Sandana Florals Vs State Bank of India on 6 October 2026

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the I Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, in I.A.No.1 of 2026 in AS.SR.No.8245 of 2026, 08.09.2026, condoning the delay of 78 days in filing the first appeal.

2. The respondent herein filed a suit seeking recovery of money against the petitioner. The petitioner filed counter claim in response to the money suit filed by the respondent. The suit filed by the respondent was dismissed and counter claim filed by the petitioner was allowed by the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2026. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred first appeal with a delay of 78 days. The said condone delay petition was allowed by the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein has come before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit the respondent in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition mentioned only administrative reasons for explaining the delay. It is further stated that the respondent has not given specific dates on which the certified copies were made, the dates on which the legal opinion was obtained by them

( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 05:04:47 pm )

CRP.No.6397 of 2026

etc. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the First Appellate Court based on the vague allegations in the affidavit ought not to have condoned the delay of 78 days.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition, it was stated by the respondent that after getting legal opinion of the Bank’s Panel Advocate, due to time taken in getting internal approvals and processing of the papers at various levels of the Bank’s Hierarchy, considerable time was lost and hence, there was a delay in filing the first appeal. There is some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has not mentioned the date on which the certified copies were received by them and the dates on which the legal opinion was obtained from the Panel Counsel and the approval for filing the first appeal was sanctioned by the Higher Authorities. However, it is matter of common knowledge that whenever a case is instituted by institution like public sector banks and such institution is aggrieved by the order, the necessary sanction from various levels of the Hierarchy of Officials have to be obtained.

5. Taking into consideration, the length of the delay and the reasons assigned by the respondent in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay

( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 05:04:47 pm )

CRP.No.6397 of 2026

petition, the First Appellate Court exercised its discretion in favour of the respondent to condone the delay by imposing the cost of Rs.5,000/-. I do not find any perversity in the exercise of discretion of the First Appellate Court and therefore, this Court feels the order impugned in this revision requires no interference.

6. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 06-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dm

( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 05:04:47 pm )

CRP.No.6397 of 2026

To The I Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 05:04:47 pm )

CRP.No.6397 of 2026

S.SOUNTHAR J. dm CRP.No.6397 of 2026 and CMP.No.27543 of 2026 06-10-2026

( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 05:04:47 pm )