Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2975 (MAD)

R. Bharat Kumar v. J. Sathiyanathan

2006-11-04

K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN

body2006
Judgment :- (Petition under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order dated 3.10.2005 made in I.A.No.14867 of 2004 in O.S.NO. 2750 of 2004 on the file of the First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) This revision petition has been filed against the order at the instance of the defendant/respondent herein to defend the summary suit filed by the petitioner herein. 2. The precise case is that the respondent herein borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for purchase of immovable property and for family expenses and executed promissory notes dated 25.6.2001 promising to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. In spite of repeated demands and notice dated 23.3.2004, the amount has not been paid by the respondent nor sent any reply to notice sent by the petitioner. Hence the suit filed in a summary manner under Order XXXVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. 3. The defendant/respondent herein filed an application seeking leave to defend the suit on the premise that there is a triable issue in the suit because of the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner used to lend money for interest. In such transactions, the petitioner obtained several promissory notes. Even in respect of the disputed transactions, which are the subject matters of the suit dated 18.6.2001, the amount has already been repaid along with interest and thus, there is a triable issue on it. 4. Upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel and perusing the materials on record, particularly ExA1 to ExA7, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that there is a triable issue in the suit and leave has to be granted to the defendant to defend the suit and thus, granted the relief in favour of the respondent herein. That order is no canvassed in this revision petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials on record. 6. As stated above, the isolated transaction is not the only transaction between the petitioner and the respondent. In order to prove the same, the respondent marked as many as nine documents before the Trial Court. The Trial Court, having gone through the same, came to the conclusion that the respondent has raised a triable issue. 6. As stated above, the isolated transaction is not the only transaction between the petitioner and the respondent. In order to prove the same, the respondent marked as many as nine documents before the Trial Court. The Trial Court, having gone through the same, came to the conclusion that the respondent has raised a triable issue. It is well settled that if the Court is satisfied that there is a triable issue, leave must be granted to the respondent and the defence taken by the respondent herein cannot be, at this stage, regarded as an invalid defence raised for the purpose of defending the suit. The Rule is that if the Trial Court is satisfied that there is a triable issue, leave to defend the suit has to be granted. That is the reason why leave has been granted by the Trial Court after considering the documents filed by the respondent/defendant. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the Trial Court so as to interfere with the same in this revision petition. 7. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the above CMP is also dismissed.