Allowed

State Bank of India v. Pagadala Sumalatha

DRT18 Feb 2026OA/637/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-II at Hyderabad allowed an original application filed by State Bank of India against Pagadala Sumalatha for recovery of a home loan dues of Rs. 44,32,961, secured by a mortgage. The defendant was absent ex-parte, and the bank’s evidence was accepted as conclusive.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs. 44,32,961 with future interest; OA claim secured by mortgage and against defendant's properties; costs awarded.

State Bank of India versus Pagadala Sumalatha — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 637 OF 2025

¶4

State Bank of India., SARB Bra nch, Vijayawada Krishna District. Rep. by its Chief l.4anager.

¶5

... . ,Applica nt.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Pagadala Suma latha, D/o. Pagadala Nagaraju, Occ: Government lob, 37 Years Door No.4-96-C, Near Petrol Pump Eswaramma Colony, [4ada napa lle Village & Ivlandal, Chittoor District - 577325.

¶8

...Defendant

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant

¶10

: N4r. lY. Kotinaga ia h

Defendant

:Ex-parte

::^qLLEE ::

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.44,32,961/- as on 23.06.2025 towards Home^Loan from the defendant with future interest @9.05o/o^{p.a. with} monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of^oA schedule^property.

¶15

Summon served on sole defendant through^{paper publication} and was set ex-parte on 22.01.2026 as called^absent and^no representation. W"t""

¶16

oA.NO.63l202s

¶17

¶18

l. The Applicant Bank exa mined K. Srirama Chandra M u rthy, Manager, as AW-1 and marked 09 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.09.

¶19

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank. Perused the material placed on record.

¶20

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶21

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant and OA schedule property?

¶22

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.09 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank ciinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendant is liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶23

In the result, the present Original Application No.637l2025 is allowed as under: -

¶24

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.44,32,961/towards Home Loan with future interest @90/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶25

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of property described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the aoDlicant bank is 2gv^,*

¶26

(L/'tt'Y'-

¶27

oA.N0.637l2o2s

¶28

entitled to^proceed against the^{same to} realise its debt;

¶29

iii) the applicant bank is also^{entitled to proceed} against the^person and^propertiesof defendants for realization^{of its dues;}

¶30

iv) the applicant bank is entitled^{for the costs.}

¶31

B. The Applicant Bank is directed^{to file Cost Memo within2 weeks} from the date of receipt of^{this Order.}

¶32

Issue Recovery Certificate^accordingly.

¶33

Communicate a copy^{of this order to the parties concerned.} (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and^{pronounced by me in the open court on}

¶34

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Pagadala Sumalatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Pagadala Sumalatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh Rajesh versus Yms Finance Private Limited

Gummadavelli Ganesh versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Turpu Ramesh versus Can Fin Homes Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Sri Venkateswara Agencies.

Punjab National Bank versus Shri Pulluri Sairam

Canara Bank versus M/s. Chandana Apparels