C.R.P(MD)No.1485 of 2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 28.06.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

C.R.P(MD)No.1485 of 2023

and

C.M.P(MD)No.7368 of 2023

1.J.Suganthi

2.J.Madhav Chakra

3.Laxshana

...Petitioners/Petitioners/

Defendants 1 to 3

Vs.

1.A.Palanivelrajan

...1st Respondent/

1st Respondent/

Plaintiff

2.A.Ravi

3.M/s. Rathna Exports,

Office at 10-2-10,

High School Road,

Pattiveeranpatti,

Dindigul-624 211.

4.Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited,

Dindigul Branch,

No.9, Salai Road,

Dindigul-342 001.

1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P(MD)No.1485 of 2023

5.The State Bank of India,

Ayyampalayam,

Dindigul District.

...Respondents 2 to 5/

Respondents 2 to 5/

Defendants 4 to 7

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of

Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated

25.04.2023 passed in I.A.No.02 of 2023 in O.S.No.224 of 2019 on the

file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul.

For Petitioners

: Mr.M.Kannan

For R1

: Mr.T.S.R.Venkatramana

Senior Counsel

For M/s.T.Uma Maheswari

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair

and decreetal order dated 25.04.2023 passed in I.A.No.02 of 2023 in

O.S.No.224 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul.

2. The petitioners are the defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.224 of 2019

filed by the first respondent herein. In the suit along with the petitioners,

the respondents 2 to 5 are the other defendants. The suit was filed by the

first respondent to recover money that was allegedly due from

late.Jeyachandran, husband of the first petitioner and the father of the

petitioners 2 and 3.

2/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P(MD)No.1485 of 2023

3. The facts on record indicate that the petitioners, the second

respondent and late.Jeyachandran were the partners of the third

respondent and in connection with the business of the said Rathna

Exports, the plantiff appears to have claim for some money.

Late.Jeyachandran had allegedly executed a promissory note. The suit

precedes a pre-suit notice which was followed by the reply by the

petitioners dated 09.09.2019. In the reply dated 09.09.2019 to pre-suit

notice dated 20.08.2019, the petitioners have stated as follows:

"6. Our clinet states that the averments in paragraphs 6,7

and 8 are denied as false and your client is put to strict proof of

the same. Moreover, our client was shocked to see your legal

notice and has reasons to believe that your client may be using

and/or forging an instrument to extort money also in the absence

of our client's husband who might have entrusted them in good

faith and had passed away without any debt whatsoever also

towards you. our clinet further statest that the averments in

paragraphs 9 and 10 are false and your client is put to strict

proof of the same."

4. After the suit was filed, the petitioners have also filed a written

statement wherein, they have disputed the liability under the promissory

notes dated 02.01.2014 for Rs.5,00,000/- each.

3/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P(MD)No.1485 of 2023

5. In the written statement, the petitioners have stated as follows:

"5. It is humbly submitted that averments made by the

palintiff in paragraph 6 are denied as false and more so are

concocted stories made up in furtherance of the said

cohersive tactics to extort moneys from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd

defendants when the real fact is that the said partnership

firm/5th defendant was facing losses due to the cash crutch

situation created by the double standards of the plaintiff and

his brother/4th defendant. More so, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd

defendants have no liabilities towards the plaintiff or his

brother/4th defendant whatsoever.

7. It is submitted that paragraphs 9 and 10 in the

plaint have enlisted the dates of pay