K.RAMIAH Vs. K.SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the petitioner in both the Civil Revision Petitions. The respondent in each of the revision petition is the plaintiff. Both the suits were filed for recovery of money based on promissory notes said to have been executed by the petitioner. The said suits were filed under Order XXXVII Rule 1 CPC for trying the same as summary suits. The petitioner filed applications under Order XXXVII Rule 5 CPC seeking leave of the Court to defend the suit. The trial Court rejected those applications which in turn has resulted in filing of the above Civil Revision Petitions.

(2.) Mr.P.K.Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has made out a case before the Court that there are triable issues warranting grant of leave to defend the said suits. It is his contention that the plea raised by the petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the applications would show that the petitioner has pleaded full discharge in the year 1999 itself and further contended that his signature was forged as if he made some payment on 01.06.2000 apart from raising a ground of limitation that the suit, even otherwise, is time barred. By contending so, the learned counsel submitted that those plea made by the petitioner before the trial Court are undoubtedly a matter for trial and therefore, the trial Court has not justified in rejecting the applications. He further submitted that the trial Court had gone into the merits of the contention raised by the petitioner and rejected the same, which is not at all warranted while considering such an application filed under Order XXXVII Rule 5 CPC. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the decisions of this Court in G.Rajarajan Vs AIR Consumer Financial Services (India) Ltd., 2012 5 CTC 313 and S.Balasubramanian Vs V.Govindan, 2013 5 CTC 260.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in both the Civil Revision Petitions submitted that there are no triable issues warranting grant of leave to the petitioner. He further submitted that the trial Court has rightly rejected the application by considering the plea raised by the petitioner on merit. He also contended that the Court has power under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act to verify the signatures found in the disputed document and give a finding and therefore, the Court below cannot be found fault with in doing so. In Support of his submission, learned counsel relied on a decision of this Court in T.G.Balaguru Vs Ramachandran Pillai reported in CDJ 2010 MHC 904.