V SAMUEL Vs. THABAK FINANCE CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the learned XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, madras in I.A.No.521 of 1993, O.S.No.7895 of 1993.

(2.) THE defendant/revision petitioner herein in support of the said application contended that he was served with summons in the said suit on 27.11.1993 and he filed Memo of appearance on 6.12.1993 and summons for judgment was served on 13.12.1993. He would state that he has got a valid defence and triable issues arise for consideration. THE suit filed under Order 37, Rule 1, on a voucher is not sustainable in law. THE claim cannot be sustained merely on the basis of a voucher. It is further contended that the alleged borrowing of the sum of Rs.20,000 on 27.6.1990 was false and frivolous. It transpires that the plaintiff had misused his signature on the blank voucher taken by the plaintiff in a prior hire-purchase transaction which the plaintiff had with his son. THE said voucher had been filed at the convenience of the plaintiff to cause wrongful loss to the defendant.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent however, refers to the voucher and states that the signature of the defendant is not disputed. There was no contradiction in the facts as stated in the legal notice and the facts pleaded in the plaint. Therefore, the Court below was justified in rejecting the petition for granting leave to defend the suit.