CANARA BANK Rep by its Branch Manager Konganapuram Branch Edappadi Taluk Salem District vs M Suresh Mani — 4/2026
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section UNDERORDERVIIRULE1 TO 6 ANDSECTION. Disposed: Uncontested--Decreed with cost on 28th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNSA070012022025
e-Filing Number
12-12-2025
Filing Number
1320/2025
Filing Date
15-12-2025
Registration No
4/2026
Registration Date
05-01-2026
Court
Sub Court, Sankari
Judge
1-Subordinate Judge
Decision Date
28th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Decreed with cost
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
CANARA BANK Rep by its Branch Manager Konganapuram Branch Edappadi Taluk Salem District
Adv. CS GOWTHAM PRASATH
Respondent(s)
M Suresh Mani
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Subordinate Judge
Disposed
Judgement
Ex-Parte Evidence
Issue of Service
Issue of Service
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 15-04-2026 | Judgement | |
| 10-03-2026 | Ex-Parte Evidence | |
| 09-02-2026 | Issue of Service | |
| 05-01-2026 | Issue of Service |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Sangagiri Subordinate Court decreed that the defendant (M. Suresh Mani) is liable to pay Canara Bank ₹2,20,380 as outstanding agricultural loan debt with interest at 9% per annum from the date of default until the judgment date, and 6% thereafter until full payment, providing two months for settlement. The court found the bank's claims substantiated through documentary evidence and the defendant's testimony as an ex-parte defendant, while the defendant failed to appear and contest the charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Sangagiri Subordinate Court decreed that the defendant (M. Suresh Mani) is liable to pay Canara Bank ₹2,20,380 as outstanding agricultural loan debt with interest at 9% per annum from the date of default until the judgment date, and 6% thereafter until full payment, providing two months for settlement. The court found the bank's claims substantiated through documentary evidence and the defendant's testimony as an ex-parte defendant, while the defendant failed to appear and contest the charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts