S RAHAMATHULLAH Vs. RATNA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115, CPC praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 26-3-2003 made in LA. No. 5885 of 2002 in O.S. No. 5731 of 2001 by the Court of VIII Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai.

(2.) Tracing the history of the above civil revision petition having come to be filed, it comes to be known that the respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S. No. 5731 of 2001 before the Court of VIII Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai for recovery of a sum of Rs. 38,800/-. Pending the suit, the petitioner/defendant has filed the petition in LA. No. 5985 of 2002 under Order 37, Rule 3(5) of CPC praying to grant leave to the petitioner to defend the suit and, since, the said petition was dismissed by the Court-below, the petitioner/defendant in the suit has come forward to file the civil revision petition on grounds such as the finding of the trial Court that a perusal of Exs. R1 to R8 show that the goods were supplied to Rado Garments and that the same were received by the petitioner is without jurisdiction in that at the stage of enquiry in a petition for leave to defend the Court is not called upon to render a finding on merits; moreover the finding that the goods were received by the petitioner is not supported by any evidence whatsoever, that the trial Court failed to note that mere production of Exs. Rl to R7 cannot fasten the liability on the petitioner for Exs. Rl to R7 are subject to proof and relevancy at the stage of trial; that the trial Court failed to appreciate and consider the petitioner's plea that he was in no way connected with Rado Garments; that the trial Court failed to note that no proof has been placed before it to establish that the petitioner was carrying on business under the name and style of Rado Garments; that the trial Court failed to appreciate the reply dated 5-8-2001 given by the petitioner to the respondent's legal notice dated 18-7-2001. Hence, the present civil revision petition.

(3.) During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, besides reiterating those averments which have been traced in the above petition as extracted supra, would cite a judgment delivered in Prabakaran N. v. Citibank reported in 2001 (4) CTC 178, wherein it is held :