IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR CMP.No.2020 of 2026

1. G. Saravanan

2. Uma Saravanan ..Petitioner(s)

Vs D. Masilamani ..Respondent(s)

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the Order and Decreetal dated 6.2.2024 made in IA.No.4/2023 in OS.No. 4589/2023 passed by the XX Additional District and Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Allikulam, Chennai.

For Petitioner(s): M/s.S.Ganesh For Respondent(s): M/s.R. Thiagarajan

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial court dismissing the application filed by the petitioners/defendants seeking leave to defend the summary suit instituted under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of CPC.

2. The respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit seeking recovery of Rs.

8,50,000/- together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. It is the case of the respondent that in the year 2016, the first petitioner/ first defendant sought financial assistance from the respondent/plaintiff to meet his business commitments and accordingly, the plaintiff availed a loan from Indian Bank for a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs. Out of the above said amount, a sum of Rs.8,33,000/- was transferred from the respondent's account to the first petitioner's bank account on 06-09-2016. The balance amount was paid by the respondent to the first petitioner on various dates during the period from September 2016 to August 2019. It was also stated that there was understanding between the parties whereunder the petitioners agreed to pay interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The first petitioner paid only Rs. 3,50,000/- to the respondent and hence, the balance principal amount of Rs. 8,50,000/- remains unpaid. As the respondent approached the first petitioner seeking payment of amount due from him, he issued a cheque on 27-02-2022 drawn from the joint account of the petitioners for face value of Rs.5,00,000 and the said cheque was dishonoured on the ground “funds insufficient”. The respondent issued a legal notice on 22-03-2022 calling upon the defendants to pay face value of the cheque. However, the petitioners issued reply with false allegations. The first petitioner also issued another cheque on 15-04-2022 for a face value of Rs. 1,70,000/- in favour of respondent and the same was also dishonoured. The legal notice issued by the respondent was encountered with false reply by petitioners. In these circumstances, the respondent instituted the above suit for recovery of money under Order XXXVII Rule 1 of CPC treating the same as a summary suit. 3. The petitioners filed instant application seeking leave to defend the suit. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition seeking leave to defend the suit, the petitioners raised the following points:-

i) the plaint document No.1, statement of account would indicate that the amount was transferred from the bank account of the respondent to the bank account of “I Shines”, a business entity run by the first petitioner, but the same was not paid to the first petitioner in his individual capacity.

ii) there was no contract between the parties to pay interest at the rate of

24% per annum.

iii) a perusal of the plaint document No. 1 would indicate that a sum of Rs. 8,23,100/- was transferred to the account of “I Shines” and hence, the averment in the plaint as if Rs.8,33,000/- was transferred was not correct. iv)The respondent failed to specify the exact date on which the remaining amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was paid to the petitioners by cash.

v)The amount of Rs.8,23,100/- was transferred to the bank account of the first petitioner's business entity towards discharging the amount due to the first petitioner in the interior designing work done by him in the residence of the respondent.

4.The respondent filed counter and opposed the application on the ground that various points raised by the petitioners were not substantiated by any documents and all the al