AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of dismissal dated 09.01.2004 passed in I.A. No. 12264 of 2003 in O.S. No. 1881 of 2003 on the file of the XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.
The revision petitioners are the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit filed by the respondent. The respondent filed the suit under Order 37 CPC claiming a sum of Rs. 42,400/- together with interest of Rs. 40,000/- from the date of the plaint till realisation. Along with the suit, the promissory note dated 25.11.2002 signed on behalf of the first revision petitioner was also filed. The second revision petitioner filed an affidavit in July 2003 seeking unconditional leave to defend the suit. In the affidavit in paragraph 5, the revision petitioners have stated that they had series of transactions with certain named persons and they have given blank documents with reference to the previous transaction. In the tabular column given under paragraph 5 in serial No. 3, they have mentioned the respondent / plaintiff''s name. According to them, they do not owe any amount due to the respondent / plaintiff. This leave application was resisted by the respondent / plaintiff by filing a counter affidavit. One of the significant statement made was that when the respondent / plaintiff gave a notice, no reply was sent by the defendants denying their liability to make any payment.
The trial Court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the entire amount claimed was based on promissory note and the statement made by the revision petitioners were all bald statements and there are nothing to connect with the averments made by them with the plaint averments and the present petition has been filed only to protract the proceedings. Hence, the leave application was dismissed. As against the said order, the present Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners.
I have heard Mr. R.Subramaniyan, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr. G.Saravanan, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the respondent not being represented by any person and have perused the records. The petitioners obtained an interim stay of further proceedings by order dated 17.9.2005.
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, in support of his contention, relied on three decisions of this Court reported in 2001 (3) CTC 420 [V. Samuel v. Thabak Finance Corporation, rep. by its Partner S.Madanchand and Anr.], 2001 (4) CTC 178 [N. Prabakaran v. Manager, Citibank N.A., 766 Anna Salai, Chennai] and 2006 (2) L.W. 154 [L. Clement Ravichandran v. Om Sindhoori Capital Investment Limited].
In the judgment reported in 2001 (3) CTC 420, it was the suit filed on a voucher and it was contended that the suit cannot be filed under Chapter 47 and under Order 37 CPC on a voucher and there were other transactions. Therefore, this Court held that it is a triable issue and the plea of the defendant cannot be rejected before the trial.
In the decision reported in 2001 (4) CTC 178, the suit was filed that a professional credit was given by the Bank and the schedule of repayment was not adhered to by them and that the petitioner obtained an order of injunction from the City Civil Court against the Bank not to present the cheque. Therefore, this Court held that the defendant had plausible defence and he need not prove his defence at the time of seeking leave.
In the decision reported in 2006 (2) L.W. 154, it was a case where the suit was filed on the basis of an agreement and a promissory note was also executed to pay the loan jointly and severally together with interest. Since the defendant in that suit did not pay the amount, the suit was filed and in the leave application, the defendant had stated the circumstances under which he signed the agreement and promissory note and there were several other transactions arising out of the execution of the agreement. It is not a case where the claim is not based upon a bundle of causes of action, but only on the basis of pronote. Therefore, this will have no application to the facts of the present case.
In the above circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition fails and the same shall stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as costs. Interim stay granted on 17.9.2005 in C.M.P. No. 15450 of 2005 shall stand vacated and the same is closed. Since it is a money suit of the year 2003, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the parties are directed to co-operate in completing the trial without putting any obstruction.