C.R.P.No.168 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11.07.2023

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

C.R.P.No.168 of 2019

and

C.M.P.No.1375 of 2018

1.J.Murali Manohar

2.J.Jayakumar

.. Petitioners

vs

Chhaganlal Jain (died)

Prop.Jeet Traders

Govindappa Naicken Street

Chennai 600 001.

1.Vimala C Jain

2.Rajesh C Jain

3.Ashwin C Jain

4.Rikesh C Jain

(R1 to R4 brought on record

vide order dated 11.07.2023)

.. Respondents

Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to

challenge the decree and fair order passed by the VII Assistant

City Civil Court at Chennai dated 04.09.2018 in I.A.No.10357 of

2016 in O.S.No.5822 of 2015.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.T.T.Ravichandran

For Respondents

:

Mr.Srikanth

1/5

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

C.R.P.No.168 of 2019

ORDER

This civil revision petition arises against an order dismissing

I.A.No.10357 of 2016 in O.S.No.5822 of 2015.

2.

The said application was filed for leave to defend the

suit presented on a promissory note. The suit is an under chapter

suit which was filed on 14.09.2015. Soon after entering

appearance, the civil revision petitioners took up an application

under Order 37 Rule 3 of CPC seeking for leave to defend.

3.

The case of the petitioner is that

(i) he does not know the plaintiff

(ii) there is no privity of contract,

(iii) the documents on the basis of which the pro note

have been filed are fabricated,

(iv) the signature is a forgery and

(v) the plaintiff is a financier.

4.

He would concede that the defendant is a film

producer, who has numerous transactions with several financiers

and brokers and had executed his signature on blank papers.

2/5

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

C.R.P.No.168 of 2019

5.

Learned counsel for the respondent filed counter

denying the statement and had pleaded that he had lent money by

way of account payee cheque for a tune of Rs.4 lakhs and the

plaintiff had also adjusted interest to the tune of about Rs. 1 lakh

on 27.11.2013. The said payment was also done by way of account

payee transfer. In other words, out of a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs, Rs.1

lakh had been paid towards interest, leaving the principal amount

together with subsequent interest.

6.

The learned Judge did not consider the defendant's

plea that the pro-note, on the basis of which the suit has been

presented, is a forgery. That is a triable issue which has to be gone

into. Therefore, I am of the view that the defendant should be

granted leave to defend the suit. However, I am not inclined to

grant unconditional additional leave because of Ex.R3, which has

been produced before the Court. R3 is a Bank certificate to state

the payment have been made by the plaintiff to the defendant by

way of bank transfer (cheque). Rs.1 lakh having been admitted by

the plaintiff leaves the remaining amount of Rs.4 lakh.

7.

Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed on the

following terms.

3/5

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

C.R.P.No.168 of 2019

(i)

The order passed in I.A.No.10357 of

2016 in O.S.No.5822 of 2015 dated 04.09.2018

is set aside;

(ii) Conditional leave is granted to the

defendant. The defendant shall deposit a sum

of Rs.4 lakh within a period of four weeks from

today to the credit of O.S.No.5822 of 2015;

(ii) On such deposit, the Court shall receive the

written statement from the defendant and

proceed with the suit;

(iii) In case, if the defendant does not make

the payment of Rs.4 lakh, the Civil Revision

Petition shall stand dismissed automatically.

8.

There shall be no order as to costs. Connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.

11.07.2023

Index:Yes/No

Neutral Citation:Yes/No

ssm

To

The VII Assistant City Civil Court,

Chennai.

4/5

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

C.R.P.No.168 of 2019

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.

ssm

C.R.P.No.168 of 2019

11.07.2023

5/5

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