The main legal point established in the judgment is that the holder of a negotiable instrument must fill up the blanks within a reasonable time and file the suit only after filling up the promissory note. The court emphasized that an incomplete promissory note does not entitle the holder to a decree and highlighted the importance of resorting to the original cause of action.

1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 09.10.2012 made in I.A.No.8729 of 2012 in O.S.No.7182 of 2010 on the file of III Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The petitioners are the defendants and respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.7182 of 2010 on the file of the III Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. The respondent filed suit against the first petitioner/Meenambal for recovery of a sum of Rs.24,28,200/- based on two promissory notes dated 14.10.1999 for Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.2,80,000/-. The third petitioner filed written statement on 12.11.2010 and is contesting the suit.

3. Pending suit, before filing written statement, the said Meenambal died and the petitioners 2 & 3 were impleaded as her legal heirs. Pending C.R.P., the second petitioner also died and third petitioner is the only legal heir of the petitioners 1 & 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners filed a memo to that effect.

4. The respondent filed I.A.No.8729 of 2012 under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 151 C.P.C. to permit him to fill the name of the respondent as payee and name of the first petitioner as drawer in the demand promissory note dated 14.10.1999.

5. According to the respondent, the said Meenambal executed a promissory note in blank and authorised the respondent to fill up the names of the drawer and drawee. The said Meenambal did not raise any objection regarding the execution of the promissory note dated 14.10.1999.

6. The third petitioner filed counter affidavit and denied all the averments made in the application and submitted that execution of the promissory note itself is denied by her in the written statement. The said promissory note is forged one, no authority was given to the respondent to fill up the promissory note. Even if there is any authority to fill up the blanks, the same ought to have been exercised within the reasonable time and before filing of the suit. After the death of drawer, the authority, if any given is extinguished.

7. The learned Judge considering Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and judgment reported in (1962) 1 MLJ 306 Madras High Court (M.P. Rm. Irulandi Mudaliar v. Syed Ibrahim and others) relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent, allowed the application.

8. Against the said order dated 09.10.2012 made in I.A.No.8729 of 2012, the present civil revision petition is filed by the petitioners/defendants.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the averments made in the counter affidavit as well as the grounds of revision. He submitted that the learned Judge failed to consider the judgment relied on by the petitioners reported in AIR 1983 Madras 368 (Sesharal Bajna v. V.C. Subramanian) and contended that a blank in promissory note must be filled up within reasonable time and cannot be filled up after filing of suit and after death of the executant.

10. Though notice served on the respondent and his name has been printed in the cause list, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent either in person or through counsel.

11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

12. As per Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a holder of negotiable instrument is entitled to fill up the blanks. It is well settled that holder of negotiable instrument must fill up the blanks within reasonable time. In the judgment reported in AIR 1983 Madras 368 (Sesharal Bajna v. V.C.Subramanian), in para-7, it has been held as follows:

“7. Therefore, the more important point for consideration is, whether the plaintiff is entitled to fill up the blanks long after the filing of the suit. I have carefully considered this argument and I am of opinion that until the drawee's name is inserted before the filing of the suit the instrument is not a promissory note in the eye of law. In other words, unless the plaintiff or the holder exercises the authority under Section 20 of the