M ASAN ALI Vs. C MAHAVEER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petitioner herein is the applicant in I.A.No.14875 of 2009 and defendant in O.S.No.7786 of 2005, on the file of the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) The Civil Revision Petitioner has filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.14875 of 2009 praying to grant unconditional leave to the petitioner/defendant to defend the above suit against the respondent/defendant on 25.08.2009, under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) r/w Section 151 of C.P.C. In the said application, the revision petitioner/applicant/defendant has inter-alia stated that the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,000/- together with interest thereon, at the rate of 36%. The revision petitioner submitted that the plaintiff obtained his signature in an unfilled blank promissory note. After his signature was affixed, the plaintiff filled the said blank promissory note, according to his wants and wish, for the purpose of filing the suit. The revision petitioner further stated that he has paid the interest for a period, which was more than the period stated in the plaint. Further, he had never been served with the legal notice as stated in the plaint. As such, in the suit, there are issues, which have to be tried. The revision petitioner has stated that the suit has been filed beyond the limitation period and as such he has prayed for unconditional leave to defend the suit.

(3.) In the counter filed by the respondent/plaintiff, it is stated that the consideration was received by the revision petitioner/defendant from the plaintiff, by means of account payee Cheque drawn on Union Bank of India bearing No.312671, dated 11.11.2002. The respondent/plaintiff has mentioned in his plaint that the revision petitioner has paid interest upto 10.01.2003 at the rate of 36% per annum, which is a contract rate of interest and agreed rate of interest. The respondent has agreed that the revision petitioner has paid interest, but has denied the allegation of the revision petitioner that he had paid the entire principal amount. Hence, he has prayed to dismiss the said interlocutory application.