Sate Bank of India , represented by Karaikudi Main Branch vs Muthukumar S — 74/2019

Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section Sec22, C.P.C,OrderVII,RuleI. Status: Batta. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.

Batta Next hearing 12-Jun-2026

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNSV010039272019

Filing Number

731/2019

Filing Date

21-Oct-2019

Registration No

74/2019

Registration Date

24-Oct-2019

Court

District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai

Judge

11-Additional District Judge,sivagangai

Last updated 29-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Court Fees Act, 1870 Section Sec22, C.P.C,OrderVII,RuleI

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sate Bank of India , represented by Karaikudi Main Branch

    Adv. SENTHIL KUMARAN.P

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Muthukumar S

Case History

  1. 12-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 15-Apr-2026

    Batta

    Additional District Judge,sivagangai

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Batta

    Additional District Judge,sivagangai

  4. 06-Feb-2026

    Batta

    Additional District Judge,sivagangai

  5. 07-Jan-2026

    Batta

    Additional District Judge,sivagangai

  6. 19-Nov-2025

    Appearance

    Additional District Judge,sivagangai

  7. 10-Nov-2025

    Appearance

    Additional District Judge,sivagangai

  8. 15-Oct-2025

    Appearance

    Additional District Judge,sivagangai

  9. 08-Sep-2025

    Appearance

    Additional District Judge,sivagangai

  10. 08-Sep-2025

    Restored

    Additional District Judge,sivagangai

  11. 08-Sep-2025

    Appearance

    Additional District Judge,sivagangai

  12. 16-Aug-2021

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case 74/2019 Summary: State Bank of India filed suit against S. Muthukumar (jewellery proprietor) seeking recovery of Rs. 12,56,122/- with 15.65% interest from the date of plaint and costs. On 16 August 2021, the Additional District Court, Sivagangai dismissed the suit for default because the plaintiff failed to appear, provided no legal representation, and did not pay batta (witness fees) despite being given sufficient prior opportunities. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  13. 16-Aug-2021

    Disposed

    Additional District Judge,sivagangai

  14. 07-Aug-2021

    Batta

    Additional District Judge,sivagangai

  15. 16-Jul-2021

    Batta

    Additional District Judge,sivagangai

  16. 10-Jul-2021

    Lok Adalat

    Additional District Judge,sivagangai

  17. 07-Jul-2021

    Lok Adalat

    Additional District Judge,sivagangai

  18. 11-Jun-2021

    Issue of Service

    Additional District Judge,sivagangai

  19. 23-Apr-2021

    Issue of Service

    Additional District Judge,sivagangai

  20. 23-Mar-2021

    Issue of Service

    Additional District Judge,sivagangai

  21. 23-Feb-2021

    Issue of Service

    Additional District Judge,sivagangai

  22. 08-Jan-2021

    Issue of Service

    Additional District Judge,sivagangai

  23. 02-Dec-2020

    Issue of Service

    Additional District Judge,sivagangai

  24. 02-Nov-2020

    Issue of Service

    Additional District Judge,sivagangai

  25. 05-Oct-2020

    Issue of Service

    Additional District Judge,sivagangai

  26. 18-Aug-2020

    Issue of Service

    Additional District Judge,sivagangai

  27. 13-Jul-2020

    Issue of Service

    Additional District Judge,sivagangai

  28. 24-Jun-2020

    Issue of Service

    Additional District Judge,sivagangai

  29. 24-Mar-2020

    Issue of Service

    Additional District Judge,sivagangai

  30. 24-Jan-2020

    Batta

    Additional District Judge,sivagangai

  31. 25-Nov-2019

    Await Notice

    Additional District Judge,sivagangai

  32. 24-Oct-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  33. 21-Oct-2019

    Case filed

    Registration No. 74/2019

casestatus.in Summary

Case 74/2019 Summary: State Bank of India filed suit against S. Muthukumar (jewellery proprietor) seeking recovery of Rs. 12,56,122/- with 15.65% interest from the date of plaint and costs. On 16 August 2021, the Additional District Court, Sivagangai dismissed the suit for default because the plaintiff failed to appear, provided no legal representation, and did not pay batta (witness fees) despite being given sufficient prior opportunities. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case