The court emphasized the necessity of granting leave to defend when material defenses are raised, particularly regarding disputed documents.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU and CMP No. 12423 of 2022 V. Krishnan ..Petitioner(s)

Vs E. Vijayalakshmi ..Respondent(s)

Prayer : This petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the decretal order dated 21.04.2022 made in I.A. No. 2 of 2021 in O.S. No. 476 of 2017 on the file of the X Assistant Judge, XII Assistant City Civil Court (FAC), Chennai.

For Petitioner(s): Mr. G.Prabhakar For Respondent(s): Mr. M.Theiva Kumar

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the decretal order dated 21.04.2022 made in I.A. No. 2 of 2021 in O.S. No. 476 of 2017 on the file of the X Assistant Judge, XII Assistant City Civil Court (FAC), Chennai. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent herein had instituted a suit for recovery of money based upon a fabricated promissory note, which was decreed exparte earlier and had come to the knowledge of the petitioner only during the Execution Proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioner had taken out applications to set aside the exparte order in the Execution Proceedings as well as in the Suit, which were also ordered. Thereafter, the petitioner had taken out an application seeking leave to defend mainly contending that the suit promissory note is a fabricated one, and also not meeting out the parameters of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The learned Judge, without considering the claim of the petitioner in its proper perspective, had dismissed the application and refused to grant leave to the petitioner to defend himself by holding that such defences raised by the petitioner are all moonshine defence and there are no triable issues to defend.

3. He would submit that the very same respondent had also instituted two other Summary Suits as against the family members and even in the said suits, leave to defend was rejected and this Court had intervened in C.R.P. (NPD)

Nos. 1766 and 1767 of 2019 and had granted leave to defend.

4. The petitioner would submit that in the present case also, the petitioner has a valid defence and without considering the same, the leave had been rejected. Hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court in the order impugned herein and direct to grant of leave to the petitioner to defend the suit.

5. Countering his arguments, Mr.M.Theiva Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent had instituted the suit as early as in the year 2017 based upon a promissory note. He would submit that the petitioner had kept himself away, which ended up in granting an exparte decree. On the said decree, an Execution Proceeding was also initiated, wherein exparte orders were passed. Only thereafter, the petitioner had sought to set aside the exparte orders in the execution petition as well as the judgment and decree in the suit. The same has also been allowed in favour of the petitioner. By taking advantage of the same, without any proper cause or any proper reason, the petitioner is attempting to seek a leave to defend the suit.

6. He would submit that the attempt made by the petitioner is only to protract the proceedings by putting up usual defences. He would submit that the case relating to the family members of the petitioner had been decreed in favour of the respondent in spite of leave being granted. Hence, he would submit that it is only a useless formality in permitting the petitioner to defend his suit. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the suit.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.

8. The petitioner had disputed the promissory note upon