O R D E R

This Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners herein challenging the order, dated 01.08.2023 passed by the III-Additional City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.5 of 2022 in O.S.No.2731 of 2019 .

2. According to the petitioners, they have filed a petition under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code to reject the plaint in the above suit. The petitioners would state that the plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- based on the promisory note written in Tamil. He would further submit that his name and his father's name is incorrect and that he is not conversant in Tamil language. The contention of the plaintiff is that he and his wife had come down to Chennai and borrowed money from the 1st respondent in Chennai when they were residing at Pudukottai. The petitioners claim is that they never came to Chennai to meet the 1st respondent and only to grab on the suit scheduled property, the suit has been filed by the petitioner. The 1st respondent does not have the capacity to lend Rs.80,00,000/-. The property at Pattukottai is worth more than 1.75 Crore and no documents have been filed in support of his claim and therefore, he prayed for rejection of the plaint.

3. The plaintiff/1st respondent had filed a counter stating that there is no legal and substantial ground to file such a petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the same has to be dismissed when the petitioner has filed the above application without mentioning any specific grounds mentioned in Rule 11 or any other valid grounds for rejection of the said plaint.

4. According, to the petitioner, the rejection of plaint is sought under Order VII CPC, the petitioner herein has not specifically stated the proper provision under which he claims for rejection of the plaint. However, the petitioner attempting to raise a ground regarding the cause of action as mentioned in the said application. Further, when there is no legal grounds and averments, the petitioners at the time of borrowing the money, they have mentioned their name as per the above suit and now they cannot escape from the clutches of law from the legal liability to pay the borrowed money. The petitioners further submitted that they never came to Chennai and no documents like PAN card and Aadhaar card are filed along with the plaint which is totally not required and that the petitioners submits that they have to adduce evidence to show that the 1st respondent has got the capacity to lend such a huge amount of cash and without any security he would have given a huge amount when it is known to him that the petitioners are owning a house at Pattukottai, worth Rs.1.75 Crores is false and unworthy in basis and that their claim is not correct.

5. Further, all these are the facts which are to be decided by a way of full fledged trial by adducing appropriate evidence and therefore, the same has to be dismissed. Further, he has stated that he has arranged this money through various sources, but, no evidence was produced along with the plaint. Only at the time of letting in evidence, he has to prove the same and the petitioners and the respondents are known to each other for several years and that the claim that he does not have a legal demand or note does not arise when it is not mandatory. Further he stated that without obtaining any Aadhaar Card, PAN card or any post dated cheques, it is not warranted as the petitioners are known to the respondents for several years and particularly from the year 2006 onwards, he used to come to his house at Chennai on several occasion and their presence in his brother-in- laws marriage held at Madurai in 2008 would show that they are close nexus to each other and only for the business purposes he has got the same and further, there are some documents, which would be filed at the time of the trial to prove all these aspects. Further, the petitioner submitted that the primary evidence, the original documents and other necessary evidence can be let-