A defendant may be granted leave to defend if a plausible defense is presented, but must deposit a portion of the claim amount as a condition for proceeding.

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is at the instance of the petitioner/defendant. The respondent/plaintiff instituted O.S.No.7786 of 2022 on the file of the XXIII Additional City Civil Court, Allikulam at Chennai.

2. The suit is for recovery of a sum of Rs.64,99,160/- together with the interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The suit has been presented on the foot of three promissory notes said to have been executed by the petitioner/defendant in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff also pleaded that in discharge of the said amounts, the respondent/plaintiff had transferred part payments on several days commencing from 09.02.2013 and concluding with 10.01.2018. He had given the list of payments that had been made by the respondent/plaintiff as a schedule to the plaint.

3. Being an under chapter suit, on the petitioner/defendant entering appearance, he gave notice of appearance, for which, summons for judgment had also been filed by the respondent/plaintiff. Immediately, the petitioner/defendant took out an application for leave to defend. The application, seeking for leave to defend, was numbered in I.A.No.3 of 2023 and after receipt of a counter, the said application came to be dismissed by the learned Trial Judge on 29.01.2024, against which, the present Revision Case is filed.

4. Heard Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Counsel for Mr.S.Saravana Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.T.Srikanth, learned Counsel for the respondent.

5. Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Counsel for the petitioner/defendant would submit as follows:-

(i) This is a commercial dispute and therefore, the regular Civil Courts will not have jurisdiction;

(ii) The respondent/plaintiff, having acted as a money lender, is covered under the Money Lenders Act and the interest that has been charged by him is exorbitant way above the limits that have been fixed by the said Act.

(iii) The payment was made to one Chandra Kumar Bafna and the petitioner/defendant does not even know who the respondent/plaintiff is. All the payments that were made by the petitioner/defendant were only to Chandra Kumar Bafna and after having received the amount, since he has not duly accounted for the same, a Police complaint was also lodged on 23.01.2023 with the jurisdictional Police Station. This, he has substantiated by filing the document as Ex.P1 before the Court.

6. The argument of Mr.R.Thiagarajan is that at all points of time, the petitioner/defendant was under impression that Chandra Kumar Bafna had advanced his funds and not that of the respondent/plaintiff. On this basis, he would plead that he is entitled for unconditional leave to defend. In addition, he would state that the petitioner/defendant is entitled for leave to defend as the respondent/plaintiff has not issued a notice prior to the presentation of the plaint.

7. Per contra, Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would contend that this is not a commercial transaction within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (Act 4 of 2016). He would state that this is a simple transaction of lending of money from one person to another which is not covered under the said Act. He would further draw my attention to the affidavit that has been filed in support of the leave to defend application, in particular, in paragraph No.16 to state that the petitioner/defendant had admitted the borrowal from the respondent/plaintiff and his only plea was that as the reconciliation of the accounts not being done properly and had it been done, then, the petitioner/defendant would not be liable to pay the amounts demanded in the plaint.

8. This itself would show, according to Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, that the petitioner/defendant has conceded to the case of the respondent/plaintiff and hence, his defence is moonshine and therefore, the order of the learned Trial Judge does not require interference. He would also rely upon the judgmen