M VENUGOPAL Vs. G MANOHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT in O. S. No. 7187 of 1993 on the file of XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, against the dismissal of his petition in LA. No. 11452 of 1995 filed under Order 37, Rule 3 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure to defend the suit unconditionally, has filed the above Revision before this Court.

(2.) THE plaintiff/respondent herein filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 38,000/- with interest on Rs. 20,000/- at 30 per cent per annum based on a promissory note dated 24-9-1990 under Order 37, Rule 1 C. P. C. The defendant/petitioner herein filed I. A. No. 11452 of 95 under Order 37, Rule 3 (4) C. P. C. praying for leave to defend the said suit. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is stated that he handed over papers with signature to one financial broker by name Chandra Banu who used to get money from one Bansilal. He denied the suit claim and according to him, at no point of time he borrowed any amount from the plaintiff based on the suit promissory note. No consideration ever passed under the suit promissory note much less the amount that has been specified in the suit. The blank promissory note handed over to the said Chandra Banu has been filled up and manipulated. With these averments, he prayed for leave to defend the suit. The said application was resisted by the plaintiff/respondent by filing counter. It is stated that all the averments are false. The defence raised is not a real and false, imaginary and moonshine. No issue could be raised over such false imaginary and moonshine defence. The learned XI Assistant Judge, after considering the rival contentions, rejected the case of the petitioner and dismissed the said petition; hence the present Revision,

(3.) HEARD Mr. V. Sairam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. Kishore, learned counsel for the Respondent.