Madras High Court
D.Manikandan vs T.Srinivasan on 5 October, 2023
CRP. No. 1566 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.10. 2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
CRP No. 1566 of 2023
& CMP No. 10268 of 2023
D.Manikandan
...Petitioner
Vs.
T.Srinivasan
....Respondent
PRAYER : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC,
to revise and set aside the order dated 14.09.2022 passed in I.A No. 1 of
2022 in O.S No. 2180 of 2022 by the learned XVIII Additional District
Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and allow the application for leave to
defend the suit by allowing this CRP.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.S.Swaminathan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Magesh
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP. No. 1566 of 2023
ORDER
This petition has been filed to revise and set aside the order dated
14.09.2022 passed in I.A No. 1 of 2022 in O.S No. 2180 of 2022 by the
learned XVIII Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and
allow the application for leave to defend the suit.
2.Heard both sides.
3. The respondent herein filed O.S No. 2180 of 2022, for recovery of
money a sum of Rs. 12,80,000/- with interest against the petitioner
herein/defendant based on the alleged promissory note. Immediately, the
petitioner herein filed a petition to grant leave to defend the above suit
stating that he neither borrowed money nor executed promissory note in
favour of the respondent. Further, the petitioner stated that he borrowed a
sum of Rs.1,25,000/- as interest free hand loan from the petitioner's father-
in-law and executed blank promissory note as security thereafter he handed
over the said loan to his father-in-law but he had not got back the said
promissory note hence he used the above promissory note as against the
petitioner as if he has borrowed money from the respondent. On the other
side, the respondent herein denied the petitioner's allegation stated that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP. No. 1566 of 2023
petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondent, for which
he executed a promissory note on the same day but he neither repaid the
loan amount nor interest.
4. After considering the submissions on either side, the Trial Court
dismissed the petition.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that while
issuing reply notice dated 02.11.2011 the petitioner entirely resisted the
claim of the respondent. But after filing of the suit the petitioner taking new
stand that he executed the empty promissory note to the respondent's father-
in-law for the borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- a security and admitted his
signature in the promissory note. Therefore he is not entitle to defend the
case and the Trial Court rightly appreciated the fact which needs no
interference. Hence, he prays to dismiss this petition and also the judgment
of the Court
6. On considering the submissions on either side, the fact reveals the
before filing the suit there was a exchange of notice between the parties, the
respondent issued notice on 20.10.2021 calling upon the petitioner to pay a
sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest for which the petitioner given his reply
notice dated 02.11.2021 stated that he was not aware of the said promissory
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP. No. 1566 of 2023
note. Admittedly, in the reply notice the petitioner not mentioned about the
promissory note given to the respondent's father-in-law. However, while
giving reply the petitioner reserves right to give detailed reply in his
pleadings with regard to execution of promissory note to the respondent's
father-in-law. Therefore, the petitioner not accepted the transaction nor he
accepted the signature in the promissory note as alleged by him in favour of
the respondent. Hence, if the opportunity is not given to the petitioner to
defend his case his valuable right to defend the case will be defeated.
Accordingly, the order passed by the Trial Court is set aside for the reason
that the petitioner has not admitted the signature in its entirety and also it is
rebuttable evidence. Hence, the order passed by the Trial Court in I.A No.1
of 2022 in O.S No. 2180 of 2022 is set aside. Accordinigly, I.A No. 1 of
2022 is allowed. Further the Trial Court is directed to dispose the case
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order as per manner known to law..
7.In result, this Civil Revision petition is allowed. No Cost.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP. No. 1566 of 2023
Consequentially, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.10.2023
pbl
To
The XVIII Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai
T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP. No. 1566 of 2023
Pbl
CRP No. 1566 of 2023
& CMP No. 10268 of 2023
04.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
