Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2167 (MAD)

B. Rajendran v. S. Kannan

2007-07-13

M.CHOCKALINGAM

body2007
Judgment :- A challenge is made to an order of the learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.20399 of 2006, whereby leave to defend the suit in O.S.No.3042 of 2005, a suit filed on the strength of promissory note, sought by the defendant/revision petitioner was denied. 2. The court heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The court is of the considered opinion that not even a notice is necessary to the respondent, since this civil revision petition does not require even an admission before this court. 3. It was a suit filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of the suit claim by filing under chapter suit alleging that it was a promissory note executed by the defendant for the borrowal of Rs.1 lakh from the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the said amount together with 12% interest; that despite demand, the amount was not paid and under these circumstances, the suit has been filed. The revision petitioner herein filed the instant application, seeking leave to defend, alleging that he did not know the plaintiff at all and no privity of contract with the plaintiff and he borrowed the amount from one Murugesan and the amount has been paid back and that even if the suit has to be filed, it should have been filed by the said Murugesan and not by the plaintiff, since there was no borrowal from the plaintiff and apart from that, there was material alteration made in the promissory note and under these circumstances, there were triable issues and hence, an opportunity to defend the suit should be given by way of granting leave to the defendant. The lower court has dismissed the application. Hence, this civil revision petition has been brought forth. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has reiterated the contentions what was put forth before the court below. 5. After hearing the submissions made and looking into the materials available, the court is of the considered opinion that this court has no option than to dismiss the civil revision petition. The defendant borrowed Rs.1 lakh agreeing to repay the said amount together with 12% interest and has executed a promissory note. It is not in controversy that the suit promissory note bore the signature of the petitioner herein. The defendant borrowed Rs.1 lakh agreeing to repay the said amount together with 12% interest and has executed a promissory note. It is not in controversy that the suit promissory note bore the signature of the petitioner herein. The petitioner has never denied the execution of the promissory note, but has contended that he borrowed the said amount from one Murugesan and the promissory note was given to him and there was no privity of contract between him and the plaintiff and the amount was also paid back. If to be so, the promissory note would have been got back, but not done so. Further, in the instant case, once the execution of the promissory note is an admitted fact, the alleged defence made by the defendant did not bring forth any triable issues. The court has to necessarily proceed with the suit and to pass decree. The order of the lower court is a well reasoned one and it does not require any interference, since the alleged defence by the defendant are simply vexatious and it could be denied. Accordingly, this civil revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is also dismissed.