The main legal point established in the judgment is that a defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend a suit if they raise triable issues indicating a fair or reasonable defense, as per the provisions of Order 37, Rule 3 (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure and relevant legal principles.

Aggrieved by the common order passed by XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 15-04-2002 made in I.A.Nos. 14060 and 14059 of 2001 in O.S.No. 176 of 2000, defendants 1 and 2 therein preferred the above Revision Petitions.

2. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed the said suit (O.S.No.176 of 2000) under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for judgement and decree in favour of him for a sum of Rs.55,900/- with interest on Rs.30,000/- at 30 per cent per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation. The petitioners herein/defendants before the Court below filed I.A.Nos. 14060 and 14059/2001 under Order 37, Rule 3 (5) C.P.C., praying for unconditional leave to them to defend the said suit.

3. In the affidavit the first defendant has stated that the procedures contemplated under Order 37 C.P.C. have not been followed. He was not served with a copy of the plaint and the annexures thereto along with the summons which is mandatory under Order 37, Rule 3 of C.P.C. However, he entered appearance through his counsel in time i.e., on 6-6-2001. A notice dated 6-6-2001 of appearance with address for service was served by his counsel to the counsel for plaintiff. His wife/2nd defendant never borrowed any amount nor promised to pay any amount to the plaintiff. He alone paid interest by cheques, the last of which was by cheque No. 756743 dated 6-1-96 on State Bank of India for Rs.1,500/- covering the period upto June, 1995 in all amounting to Rs.34,500/- exceeding the principal amount. On 12-11-96 he sent a cheque for Rs.10,750/- in full and final settlement of suit promissory note. The last date of payment of cheque is dated 12-11-96, hence the suit filed on 26-11-99 is barred by limitation.

4. Similar petition was filed by the second defendant wherein it is stated that she was not furnished with all the required particulars as provided under Order 37. She never borrowed any amount nor promised to pay any amount to the plaintiff. She is not a necessary party to the suit.

5. The respondent therein/plaintiff filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made by the defendants.

6. No oral evidence was let in on either side. However, Exs. P-1 to P-6 were marked on the side of the petitioners and Exs. R-1 and R-2 on the side of the respondent. The learned trial Judge by the impugned order after holding that no triable issues, dismissed their petitions; hence the above Revisions.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondent.

8. The point for consideration in these Revisions is, whether the petitioners/defendants have established triable issues to contest the suit and whether the learned trial Judge is right in dismissing their petitions.

9. First I will deal with the claim of the petitioner in C.R.P.No.2166/2002/second defendant in the suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit under Order 37 C.P.C., based on a promissory note dated 31-8-91. It is the specific case of the second defendant that she has nothing to do with the promissory note on the alleged amount received. Though the plaint averment proceeds that both the defendants, namely M. Kothandaraman and his wife K. Vasantha Devi executed a promissory note on 31-8-91 for Rs.30,000/- with a promise to repay the sum jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 30 per cent per annum, a perusal of the copy of the pronote shows that the body of the pronote does not contain the name of the second defendant-K. Vasantha Devi. It refers to only M. Kothandaraman, first defendant. It is true that at the bottom of the pronote on the left hand side, the second defendant had signed on the revenue stamp. In such a circumstance, whether she also joined in the execution of the promissory note and promised to repay the same is the question to be decided by the Court below after trial i.e., examination of witnesses and marking of documents.

10. Now coming to the claim of the first defendant, it is specificall