ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the dismissal order passed in I.A.No.8809 of 2014 in O.S.No.1141 of 2014 dated 01.04.2015 by the learned IV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent herein had filed a suit for recovery of money on the promissory note dated 14.10.2010 in O.S.No.1141 of 2014 against the 1^st defendant company namely M/S.Sanraa Media Limited, 2^nd defendant/petitioner herein and 3^rd defendant before the learned IV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

3. According to the plaintiff, on 14.10.2010, the defendants approached the plaintiff through their Finance Agent namely Anil Traders for a loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for which, the plaintiff had issued a cheque drawn on Karnataka Bank for Rs.89,000/- in favour of the 1^st defendant and paid a sum of Rs.11,000/- by cash in all aggregating to Rs.1,00,000/- and in consideration of the same, the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants, as Directors of the 1^st defendant company, had executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. In and by the said promissory note, the defendants not only executed the promissory note but also categorically acknowledged the receipt of the amount mentioned in the promissory note and agreed to pay the loan amount together with the interest thereon at 2% per month to the plaintiff.

4. In respect of the said promissory note, the defendants paid interest for the period upto 29.03.2011 by cheque and the defendants paid a part payment of Rs.20,000/- by cheque dated 11.12.2010 drawn on ICICI Bank in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendants suggested the plaintiff and their finance agent, instead of issuing part payment cheques to all the financiers, they would pay a consolidated amount through RTGS from Canara Bank in favour of their Finance Agent, Anil Traders and the finance agent were requested to distribute the amount transferred among the creditors from whom they had arranged loans to the defendants. Accordingly, the defendants had paid a consolidated amount on 03.08.2011 for Rs.3,00,000/- in favour of their finance agent. Thereafter, the said finance agent/Anil Traders had distributed the amount among the creditors and the plaintiff had received a sum of Rs.7,600/- by cheque bearing No.558960 dated 08.08.2011 drawn on Royal Bank of Scotland and thus the defendants had paid a total sum of Rs.27,600/- towards part payment of principal and failed to pay the balance of principal and all the subsequently accumulated interest. Therefore, the due payable by the defendants to the plaintiff is Rs.72,400/- for balance of principal and Rs.47,780/- for interest, in all aggregating to Rs.1,20,180/-.

5. The petitioner/2^nd defendant had filed a petition in I.A.No.8809 of

2014 in O.S.No.1141 of 2014 to grant leave to defend the suit on the ground that he was not the Director of the 1^st defendant company at the time of the alleged loan transaction and promissory note itself is not a valid one. He further states his signature was forged in the alleged promissory note and his name has been left blank. Further, the name of the borrower was also left blank in the promissory note. It is not clearly mentioned in the suit promissory note that who borrowed the money from the plaintiff. He further states that the suit is barred by limitation since the the suit promissory note was executed on 14.10.2010 but the suit was filed only on 25.02.2015. Hence, the petitioner/2^nd defendant had raised the triable issues in the suit and prayed unconditional leave may be granted to defend the suit.

6. On the other hand, the plaintiff in his counter affidavit submitted that the averments made in the petition to defend the suit are false having borrowed money from the plaintiff and executed the suit promissory note in his favour. The said allegations in the petition are made only for the purpose of getting an unconditional leave to defend the suit.

7. The trial Court after considering the averments made in th