K. ROSELINE MALLIKA Vs. A. R. V. BALACHANDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dtd. 23/12/2021 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.4701 of 2019. The revision petitioner is the defendant and the respondent instituted a suit for recovery of money.

(2.) The suit was instituted based on the impugned promissory note executed by the revision petitioner/defendant. The revision petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.1 of 2019 seeking permission from the Trial Court to defend the suit for recovery of money filed on the promissory notes. The Trial Court considered the grounds raised by the revision petitioner elaborately and made a finding that the version of the defendant in the leave to defend the petition is totally contrary to her version in the police complaint made on 15/2/2012.

(3.) The police complaint given by the defendant to the Commissioner of Police dtd. 15/2/2012 would show that the defendant was lending money to said Devaki who used to re-lend the same to others at a higher rate of interest. The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.60,00,000.00(Rupees Sixty Lakhs only) from the plaintiff and gave it to the said Devaki for refinancing the same for a higher interest rate. Apart from the plaintiff, the defendant also borrowed a sum of Rs.49,00,000.00 ( Rupees Forty-nine Lakhs only) from one Kannan and gave it to Devaki. Since the said Devaki did not pay back the money borrowed by her, the defendant gave a complaint to the Commissioner of Police claiming that the said Devaki has to return Rs.1,34,00,000.00 (Rupees One Crore and Thirty-four Lakhs only) to her. There is no denial of the police complaint dtd. 15/2/2012, in the leave to defend the petition filed by the defendant.