R. Ramachandran vs Vaibhav Agarwal, Anuradha Agarwal, S.C. Agarwal and S.C. Agarwal (HUF), rep. by its Kartha S.C. Agarwal

V. Kanagaraj, J.—The above civil revision petitions have been filed against the fair and decretal orders dated 18.8.2003 made respectively

in I.A. Nos. 11693 to 11696 of 2003, 12216 to 12220 of 2003 in O.S.Nos. 1182 to 1184 of 2003, 1186, 1220 to 1223 of 2003 on the file of

the Court XVI Assistant City Civil Judge,Chennai.

On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, it comes to be

known that the respondents/plaintiffs have filed the suits in O.S. Nos. 1182 to 1184, 1186, and 1220 to 1223 of 2003 before the Court below as

against the petitioner herein for recovery of amounts due under Pronotes along with interest. Since the suits were instituted under the provisions of

Order 37 CPC, the defendant has filed the above said interlocutory applications in I.A. Nos.11693 to 11696, 12216 to 1223 of 2003 under

Order XXXVII Rule 3 (5) C.P.C. seeking to grant leave to defend the suits and the lower Court has dismissed the said petitions. Aggrieved, the

petitioner herein/defendant has come forward to file the above civil revision petitions on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of the

above civil revision petitions.

Heard the learned counsel for both.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant would submit that there is no denial of execution of the pronotes but the said amounts or dues were

adjusted towards the cement bags supplied to one of the respondents namely S.C. Agarwal, who is having business transaction with the petitioner

for several years and therefore, there are triable issues to grant leave to defend the suits. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents

would submit that there are no triable issues to grant leave to defend the suits and there is no business transaction between the plaintiff and the

respondents. He would also rely on the decision reported in Mechelec Engineers and Manufacturers Vs. Basic Equipment Corporation, , wherein

it has been held that:

The following principles are to be followed while considering the question of granting leave to defend:-

(a) If the defendant satisfies the Court that he has a good defence to the claim on its merits the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign judgment and

the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend.

(b) If the defendant raises a triable issue indicating that he has a fair or bona fide or reasonable defence although not a positively good defence the

plaintiff is not entitled to sign judgment and the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend.

(c) If the defendant discloses such facts as may be deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend that is to say, although the affidavit does not positively

and immediately make it clear that he has a defence, yet, shows such a state of facts as leads to the inference that at the trial of the action he may

be able to establish a defence to the plaintiff''s claim the plaintiff is not entitled to judgment and the defendant is entitled to leave to defend but in

such a case the Court may in its discretion impose conditions as to the time or mode of trial but not as to payment into Court or furnishing security.

(d) If the defendant has no defence or the defence set up is illusory or sham or practically moonshine then ordinarily the plaintiff is entitled to leave

to sign judgment and the defendant is not entitled to leave to defend.

(e) If the defendant has no defence or the defence is illusory or sham or practically moonshine them although ordinarily the plaintiff is entitled to

leave to sign judgment, the Court may protect the plaintiff by only allowing the defence to proceed if the amount claimed is paid into Court or

otherwise secured and give leave to the defendant on such condition, and thereby show mercy to the defendant by enabling him to try to prove a

defence"".

Citing the above judgment, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner has not satisfied any of the above conditions

imposed by the Honourable Apex Court to grant leave for the petitioner to defend the suit and would pray to dismiss the above civil revision

petition.

On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, this Court is

of the view that the trial Court has got every right to arrive at the conclusion on the facts and circumstances and the materials placed before it and it

has rightly arrived at such a conclusion that there are no triable issues for the defendant to contest the suit and hence, this Court is not in a position

to arrive at any conclusion to cause its interference into the well considered and well merited order passed by the lower Court in rejecting the plea

of the petitioner for defending the suit as it has been advanced on his part.

In result,

(i) The above civil revision petitions do not merit acceptance and becomes liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.

(ii) The orders dated 18.8.2003 passed in I.A. Nos.11693 to 11696 of 2003, 12216 to 12220 of 2003 in O.S. Nos. 1182 to 1184 of 2003,

1186, 1220 to 1223 of 2003 by the XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is confirmed.

(iii) No costs.

(iv) Consequently, C.M.P. Nos. 4579 to 4587 of 2003 are also dismissed.