VARADHARAJAN Vs. SARAVANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S. No.4292 of 1996 before the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is the Revision Petitioner herein.

(2.) The petitioner/defendant has filed an application in I.A. No.6580 of 2000 under Order 18 Rule 16 and Section 151 C.P.C. to take out supheona to R. Yogalakshmi and Bharanitharan, who are the original promisees of the suit promissory note to appear before the Court and to give evidence and the said application was dismissed by order dated 7.6.2000. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) It is seen that the suit has been filed on the basis of assigned promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been examined as P.W.1 and one of the witnesses to the promissory note has also been examined as P.W.2. It is the case of the defendant that he does not know the original promisees under the promissory note. But at the same time he states that he knows one Bakthavatchala Naidu, who had secured his signature in blank stamp papers at his office, but no consideration was passed. As such, the signature of the defendant in the suit promissory note is admitted. But, however, he would dispute that the plaintiff is a not holder in due course of the promissory note.