Disposed¶38

State Bank of India v. P.Ravi

Madras HC16 Jun 2026CRP/3270/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, CRP No. 3270 of 2026 (decided 16-06-2026, Abdul Quddhose J.): State Bank of India Whites Road Branch challenged the Trial Court's order treating its summary suit (money recovery suit against P.Ravi in O.S. No.6772 of 2025) as an ordinary suit for non-service of summons for judgment. Court did not decide merits; disposed of revision with time-bound directions — written statement within four weeks (else defendant set exparte) and suit disposal within one year; notice dispensed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition disposed of with directions: respondent to file written statement in O.S. No.6772 of 2025 within four weeks, failing which to be set exparte; Trial Court to dispose of the suit within one year after completion of pleadings or exparte; notice to respondent dispensed with; no costs.

State Bank of India Vs P.Ravi — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court erred in treating the petitioner's summary suit as an ordinary suit on the ground that the summons for judgment was not served by the petitioner on the respondent.

¶23

Court's answer

The Court declined to go into the merits of the respective contentions, holding that entertaining the Civil Revision Petition will not enure to the benefit of the petitioner and will only drag on the suit proceedings.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The only remedy that could be granted in the interest of justice was to direct the Trial Court to dispose of the suit within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶29

Key takeaways

The respondent was directed to file the written statement in O.S. No.6772 of 2025 within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, failing which the Trial Court shall set the respondent/defendant exparte.ratio¶31
On completion of pleadings or on the defendant being set exparte, the Trial Court shall dispose of the suit after framing issues and after conducting trial within a period of one year thereafter.ratio¶32
Since no adverse order was being passed against the respondent, notice to the respondent was dispensed with.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition (CRP No. 3270 of 2026, Madras High Court, Abdul Quddhose J.) against the order dated 18.03.2026 of the XX Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S. No.6772 of 2025, whereby the petitioner-bank's summary suit for recovery of loan dues against the respondent was treated as an ordinary suit on the ground that the summons for judgment was not served. The Court declined to go into the merits, observing that entertaining the revision would not benefit the petitioner and would only prolong the suit. The revision was disposed of by directing the respondent/defendant to file the written statement within four weeks, failing which he is to be set exparte, and directing the Trial Court to dispose of the suit after framing issues and trial within one year thereafter. Notice to the respondent was dispensed with as no adverse order was passed; no costs.

¶1

CRP No. 3270 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

CRP No. 3270 of 2026

¶7

State Bank of India Whites Road Branch No. 41, Whites Road Royapettah, Chennai 14 Rep by its Branch Manager

..Petitioner(s)

P.Ravi

..Respondent(s)

To set aside the order dated 18 03 2026 passed in OS No 6772 of 2025 on the file of Honble XX Additional City Civil Court Chennai.

¶13

For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Elumalai

¶14

Order

¶15

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, challenging the impugned

¶16

order dated 18.03.2026 passed in O.S. No.6772 of 2025 on the file of the learned XX Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶17

2.Under the impugned order, the summary suit filed by the petitioner has

¶18

been treated to be an ordinary suit by the Trial Court. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the suit, filed a suit for recovery of money against the respondent,

¶19

who is the defendant. The suit claim arises out of non repayment of loan by the

¶20

Page1 of 6

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

CRP No. 3270 of 2026

¶23

respondent to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, erroneously, the Trial Court has treated the summary suit as an ordinary suit by holding that the summons for judgment was not served by the petitioner on the respondent. According to the petitioner, only after the notice of appearance has been served by the respondent on the petitioner within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the suit summons, the petitioner will have to serve the summons for judgment on the respondent. According to the petitioner, the procedure for summary suit has not been followed by the respondent and therefore, the Trial Court ought not to have treated the summary suit as an ordinary suit through the impugned order.

¶24

3.As seen from the impugned order, the Trial Court has treated the summary suit as an ordinary suit on the ground that the summons for judgment was not served by the petitioner on the respondent. The Trial Court has held that since the petitioner is having knowledge that the respondent has entered appearance in the suit by filing a vakalat, the petitioner ought to have served the summons for judgment on the respondent.

¶25

4.This Court is not going into the merits of the respective contentions. The suit has been filed for recovery of money on account of non repayment of loan by the respondent to the petitioner. Entertaining this Civil Revision Petition will not enure to the benefit of the petitioner. It will only drag on the suit

¶26

Page2 of 6

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

CRP No. 3270 of 2026

¶29

proceedings. This Court also expressed the said view to the learned counsel for the petitioner, who also agrees with the view taken by this Court. Therefore, the only remedy that can be granted by this Court, in the interest of justice, is that it should direct the Trial Court to dispose of the suit within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶30

5.It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that till date, the respondent has not filed the written statement. Necessarily, the respondent will have to file the written statement within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶31

6.Accordingly, this Court directs the respondent to file the written statement before the learned XX Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S. No.6772 of 2025 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the respondent fails to file the written statement within the period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the Trial Court shall set the respondent/defendant exparte in the suit O.S. No.6772 of 2025 on the file of the learned XX Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. On completion of pleadings or on the defendant being set exparte by

¶32

the Trial Court as directed by this Court in this order, the Trial Court shall dispose of the suit after framing issues and after conducting trial within a period of one year thereafter.

¶33

__________ Page3 of 6

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

CRP No. 3270 of 2026

¶36