T THIYAGARAJAN Vs. K R VENUGOPALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second Defendant is the Petitioner herein and Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order made in LA. No. 21458 in O.S. No. 9466 of 1988 on the file of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. By the impugned order, the first Respondent/Plaintiff was permitted to include his name in the suit Promissory Note dated 23.10.1985.

(2.) The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition are that the Respondent filed a Suit against Tmt. Sarojini and the Petitioner herein for recovery of money based on a Promissory Note dated 23.10.1985. Pending the Suit, since Tmt. Sajojini died, her legal representative were brought on record, who are the Respondents 2 to 5 herein. Deceased first Defendant filed written statement contending that they had made several payments to the Respondent/Plaintiff by cash in respect of the borrowings in the year 1983-84, at that time, the Respondent/Plaintiff had taken signatures in blank Promissory Notes and fabricating those documents has filed the Suit. During the pendency of the Suit, the Respondent filed LA. No. 21458 of 2003 to permit his name to be included in the Promissory Note by stating that by mistake, the same was not filled up.

(3.) The Respondent relied on Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called as 'the Act') and contended that he is entitled to fill up his name. The Petitioner resisted the Application by stating that the Application is belated since the promissory Note is dated 23.10.1985 and the Suit came to be filed in the year 1988 and after a period of eighteen years, at the fag end of the trial of the Suit, the Application is filed and therefore, it is liable to be rejected. Further, it was contended that if the Application is allowed, it would amount to material alteration of the Promissory Note. The trial Court considered the matter and after referring to the decision of this Court, in M.P. RM. Irulandi Mudaliar v. Syed Ibrahim, 1962 AIR(Mad) 326 relied on by the first Respondent, allowed the Application. As against the said order, the present Revision Petition has been filed.