Madras High Court
M.Ashoken vs A.L.Natarajan on 26 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.500 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.500 of 2021
M.Ashoken ..Appellant
Vs.
1.A.L.Natarajan
2.N.Abarana Devi
3.N.Lavanyadevi ..Respondents
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (na)
of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the fair and final order dated
30.07.2010 made in P.O.P.No.136 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional
District Court, Salem.
For Appellant : M/s.Zeenath Begum
For Mr.V.Rajesh
For Respondents : Mr.S.Kalyanaraman
[For R1 to R3]
JUDGMENT
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed, challenging the Fair and
Decreetal order dated 30.07.2010 passed in P.O.P.No.136 of 2010.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.500 of 2021
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
mainly contended that the trial Court has not dismissed the petition
based on any acceptable reasonings. No reason has been stated in the
order impugned and it was dismissed merely on the ground that the
petition is not framed and presented in the manner prescribed under
Order 33 Rule 2 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The reason for
rejection otherwise is not made available in the order.
3. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petition filed by
the appellant before the trial Court reveals that the defendants 1 to 3 in
the suit jointly borrowed a loan amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the
appellant / plaintiff on 05.04.2007 for their urgent family expenses and
they agreed to pay the interest 2% per month per Rs.100. It was agreed
to repay the loan amount within two years. However, the defendants
failed to repay the principal amount as well as the interest, even after
demand made by the appellants / plaintiffs. Thus, the petitioner was
constrained to institute a suit for recovery of money.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.500 of 2021
4. The very factum admitted in the petition filed Under Order 33
Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the appellant/plaintiff had
given a loan amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to the defendants and the agreed
interest 2% per month, per 100.
5. This being the nature of the transaction involved and further,
the appellant could able to provide loan to the defendants, this Court has
a genuine doubt that on what basis such a money lender can be treated
as an indigent person. Suit is for Recovery of Money. The appellant
given loan to the defendants for interest.
6. This being the nature of transaction and further, it is contended
that the appellant is working as a welder, this Court do not find any
merit and further, such a money lender cannot be construed as an
indigent person, so as to grant permission to institute a suit without
Court fee.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.500 of 2021
kak
7. This being the facts and circumstances, the appellant has not
established any acceptable ground for the purpose of granting
permission under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and
therefore, the Fair and Decreetal order dated 30.07.2010 passed in
P.O.P.No.136 of 2010 stands confirmed. The appellant is permitted to
pay the Court fee within a period of two months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment. No costs.
26.02.2021
kak
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking / Non-Speaking order
To
1.The I Additional District Court, Salem.
C.M.A.No.500 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
