IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 25.03.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA C.R.P.No. 1191 of 2025 &

C.M.P.Nos. 7207 of 2025 M.Sakthi ...Petitioner Vs.

M/s.Sri Vari Finance, Represented by its Manager cum power Attorney Holder Mr.K.Jagadeesan D.No.27/30, S.P.Complex, D – Mante Street, Tirupur District. ...Respondent Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 29.04.2024 passed in IA.No.2 of 2023 in OS.No.70 of 2023 pending on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur.

For Petitioner : Mr. C.Anand Ramani For P.V.S. Giridhar Associates

O R D E R

The civil revision petition is filed against the order dated

29.04.2024 passed in IA.No.2 of 2023 in OS.No.70 of 2023 pending on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur.

2. The defendant whose application for rejecting the plaint in OS.No.70 of 2023 pending on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur was dismissed, is the petitioner before this Court. 3. The suit OS.No.70 of 2023 was filed by the respondent finance company against the petitioner herein for a recovery of a sum of Rs.6,90,000/- and principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/- together with interest at 12% from the date of the plaint till payment.

4. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant who is the friend of one of the partners of the plaintiff's firm had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 12.09.2020 promising to repay the same with interest at the rate of Rs.2/- per Rs.100/- per month. A promissory note to this effect was also executed by the defendant. After availing the loan the defendant has paid interest for 3 months and thereafter stopped that payment as well. Despite request and demands the defendant has not come forward to make payment. Hence the suit.

5. The defendant on entering appearance filed an application for rejecting the plaint and the reasons for rejection are herein below given:

(a)The plaintiff is conducting a finance business without been approved and registered under the Tamil Nadu Mondy Lenders Act, 1957.

(b)The plaintiff is neither approved nor registered money lender under the Tamil Nadu Mondy Lenders Act, 1957 and the firm is not legally registered firm to do money lending business.

(c)The interest claimed is against the provisions of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act.

(d)No cause of action has been made out.

(e)Promissory note is a forged and fabricated document and is not executed by the defendant.

6. The plaintiff had filed a counter inter alia denying all the allegations made by the defendant. The allegation that the plaintiff is charging exorbitant interest is absolutely false since the interest that has been claiming is 24% which is commercial rate of interest. The allegation that the plaint has not made out any cause of action is itself totally false since the defense that has now been put forward by the petitioner / defendant is that the signature in the promissory note is a fabricated one which is an issue which has to be considered by looking in evidence that would be let in by both parties. Therefore, the same cannot be rejected at the threshold.

7. It is also the contention of the respondent that no ground as contemplated under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejecting the plaint has been set out.

8. The learned Trial Judge after considering the arguments and documents dismissed the application.

9. Challenging the same, the defendant / petitioner is before this Court.

10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner asking for admission.

11. The provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is extracted herein below:

“11. Rejection of plaint— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:—

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where t