Common Prayer : These Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal orders passed in I.A.No.14 of 2023 in O.S.No.18 of 2019 dated 10.08.2023 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli and I.A.Nos.2 of 2022, 2 of 2022 and 2 of 2022 in O.S.Nos.157 of 2018, 189 of 2018 and 179 of 2018 dated 21.11.2022 on the file of the Ist Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli and allow these petitions.

COMMON ORDER

1. The revision in C.R.P.(MD)No.2406 of 2023 is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.14 of 2023 in O.S.No.18 of 2019 dated 10.08.2023 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli, dismissing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The revisions in C.R.P.(MD)Nos.3031 to 3033 of 2023 are directed against the orders passed in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.157 of 2018, I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.189 of 2018 and I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.179 of 2018 dated 21.11.2022 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, dismissing the applications filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. In all the revisions, the revision petitioner is the defendant and the respondent as plaintiff has filed the above suits for recovery of money, due on the promissory notes.

4. The case of the respondent/plaintiff in all the suits in brief as follows:-

(a) The respondent/plaintiff is a civil contractor, doing business in the name and style of Kathir Engineering Constructions. The revision petitioner/defendant is working as a Superintendent of customs and central excise at Trichy at the time of filing of the suits and he is a friend of the respondent/plaintiff. The revision petitioner/defendant's father, his wife and one another person had started a firm under the name and style of JAGUR Enterprises and doing business in zinc metal – import and sales.

(b) The revision petitioner/defendant approached the respondent/ plaintiff in the month of July-2015 and informed that he was in need of Rs.1.50 crores for the above said business. The respondent/plaintiff informed the revision petitioner/defendant that giving a sum of Rs.1.50 crores at one stroke is not possible for him and at that time, the revision petitioner/defendant has informed that the respondent/plaintiff can pay the said amount by installments of not less than of Rs.25 lakhs each from September-2015 and before the end of December 2015 so as to enable the revision petitioner/defendant to continue the said business. The revision petitioner/defendant came to the office of the respondent/plaintiff on 27.09.2015 and received first loan amount of Rs.25 lakhs and executed a demand promissory note in his favour. Thereafter, the revision petitioner/ defendant received Rs.25 lakhs thrice on 18.10.2015, 15.11.2015 and 29.11.2015 and received another loan amount of Rs.50 lakhs on 31.12.2015 and the revision petitioner/defendant has executed separate demand promissory notes in favour of the respondent/plaintiff in all the above four occasions.

(c) The respondent/plaintiff, as agreed by the revision petitioner/ defendant, had contacted the revision petitioner/defendant on 10.01.2016 over phone and requested to settle the amount. The revision petitioner/ defendant came to the office of the respondent/plaintiff and issued six cheques drawn in State Bank of India, Palayamkottai Branch for Rs.10 lakhs each favouring the respondent/plaintiff towards partial repayment of the total loan transactions. Believing the words of the revision petitioner/ defendant, the respondent/plaintiff presented all the cheques for collection on 13.01.2016 through his bankers State Bank of India, Palayamkottai, but all the cheques were returned through a memo dated 13.01.2016 for want of sufficient funds in the bank account of the revision petitioner/ defendant. The respondent/plaintiff, after issuing statutory notice, has initiated prosecution under Section 138 of Negotiable