This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the petition Order dated 19.02.2008 made in I.A.No.14300 of 2007 in O.S.No.2756 of 2007 on the file of the XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai
2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.2756 of 2007 is the revision petitioner before this Court.
3. O.S.No.2756 of 2007 has been filed by the plaintiff under Order 37 Rule 1 C.P.C. against the respondent herein for recovering a sum of Rs.4,05,000/- on the ground that the respondent executed a pronote on 15.5.2004 for a sum of Rs.3 lakhs for the amount borrowed by the respondent.
4. The respondent herein as defendant in the suit filed I.A.No.14300 of 2007 seeking unconditional leave to defend the suit. The trial court by order dt.19.02.2008 granted unconditional leave to the respondent/defendant and aggrieved by the same the plaintiff has filed the above Civil Revision petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. I perused the entire documents available in the record.
6. The case of the revision petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.2756 of 2007 is that on 15.05.2004, the respondent/ defendant approached her and requested the loan of Rs.3 lakhs. Following that, respondent/defendant signed a promissory note for Rs.3 lakhs and agreed to pay 12% interest. As the respondent/defendant, did not even pay the interest, the revision petitioner/plaintiff sent a notice on 10.8.2006 calling upon the respondent/defendant to pay the amount together with other amounts. As there was no reply, O.S.No.2756 of 2007 has been filed for the aforesaid relief.
7. The case of the defendant in I.A.No.14300 of 2007 is that she has not borrowed any money from the revision petitioner/plaintiff at any point of time. According to her, it is the plaintiff's husband who borrowed money from her husband chit company amounting to Rs.9,55,000/- for which he executed pronotes. The revision petitioner/ plaintiff is one of the members of the registered chit business of her husband and the plaintiff's husband is the legal adviser of the chit Company. During the year 2004-2005, the chit company faced financial crisis and at that time, the plaintiff's husband helped them to prepare the documents to avail the loan and at that time, he obtained signed blank pronotes and blank stamp papers from the defendant and her husband. When the plaintiff's husband failed to pay the loan amount which he borrowed from the Chit Fund Company, the relationship between them was strained. Consequently, using the blank signed pronotes obtained from the defendant, the above suit has been filed.
8. The defendant further referred to a complaint filed by her against the plaintiff and her husband before the Economic Offence Wing Police. As no action was taken by them, she filed a Criminal O.P. before this court and this Court directed the Economic Offence Wing to register the complaint against the plaintiff and her husband.
9. With the above pleadings, the respondent/defendant sought for unconditional leave to defend the suit. I.A.No.14300 of 2007 was resisted by the petitioner/ plaintiff by filing a counter.
10. The trial court on the basis of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.14300 of 2007 and also by considering the said fact a complaint has been filed against the plaintiff and thereafter a criminal O.P. was also filed before this Court granted unconditional leave, which is assailed by the plaintiff before this Court.
11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly relied on the averments contained in the affidavit filed in I.A.No.14300 of 2007 and the averments contained in the written statement wherein it was stated that the defendant filed a Criminal O.P.No.12560 of 2007 before this Court and obtained a direction. Producing a copy of the order made in Crl.O.P.No.12560 of 2007, the learned counsel submitted that that was filed by one T.Kanniappan against his neighbours for committing trespass and criminal intimidation. Therefore, according to him, the respondent/ plaintiff came out with false averment and the trial court was swayed by that averment only.
12. The learned counsel for the respondent admitted the fact Crl.O.P.No.12560 of 2007 was not filed by the plaintiff and the Crl.O.P. was wrongly mentioned both in the affidavit and written statement. But he stood by the fact that a Crl.O.P. was indeed filed in Crl.O.P.No.12586 of 2007 and order was obtained from this Court. He also produced a copy of the order.
13. A perusal of the order dated 27.4.2007 made in Crl.O.P.No.12586 of 2007 will show that it was filed by by one Thiruppathi Raja who is the husband of the respondent/ defendant.
14. In the light of the averments made in support of the leave petition in I.A.No.14300 of 2007 and on the basis of the order passed by this court in Crl.O.P.No.12586 of 2007, I am of the considered view that there are triable issues that arose for consideration in the suit and therefore, the trial court has correctly granted leave to defend the suit unconditionally.
15. Hence, I do not find any merit in the above Civil Revision petition and the same is dismissed. No cost.
vaan To The XIII Assistant Judge, City Civl Court, Chennai