K NATESAN Vs. M A SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in under chapter suit O. S. No. 813 of 2003 on the file of the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is the revision petitioner. The revision is directed against the order in I. A. No. 7474 of 2003 dated 20. 6. 2003 allowing the respondent/defendant leave to defend the suit filed under Order XXXVII, Rule 1 C. P. C.

(2.) THE revision petitioner filed the suit O. S. No. 813 of 2003 under Order XXXVII, Rule 1 C. P. C. to recover the sum of Rs. 5,82,400/- due on the suit promissory note dated 28. 2. 2001 for Rs. 5,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and his paternal uncle N. R. Mani Iyer, who died on 11. 12. 2001 issueless. The suit was filed on 7. 2. 2003. In the plaint it is averred that the suit promissory note was executed in renewal of earlier promissory note promising to repay the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- together with interest at 14. 4% which was borrowed to meet the cost of construction of the defendant's building and further stating that the defendant paid interest upto 15. 12. 2001.

(3.) THE respondent/defendant filed I. A. No. 7474 of 2003 under Order XXXVII, Rule 4 C. P. C. seeking leave to defend the suit stating that he did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff and admitting that the plaintiff is the brother's son of late N. R. Mani Iyer, the first payee named in the suit promissory note and the plaintiff has no right in any of the properties of late N. R. Mani Iyer including the suit promissory note and the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, viz. , the legal representatives of the deceased N. R. Mani Iyer. It is further stated that the suit promissory note dated 28. 2. 2001 is not supported by consideration and in any event, the plaintiff alone cannot maintain the suit, since the suit promissory note is a joint and several promissory note. It is also stated that the late N. R. Mani Iyer has taken in adoption one Mr. D. Sathyanarayanan, who has claimed the amount due on the suit promissory note through his counsel on 27. 6. 2002. Therefore, on this ground, the defendant has sought leave to defend the suit.