V K K NAIR Vs. KANCHAN KAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second defendant/revision petitioner herein has filed an application under Order 37, Rule 3 (5) of CPC seeking leave to defend the suit, which was dismissed with costs by the Court below, hence this revision.

(2.) THE respondent herein has filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 28,300/-, based on the promissory note dated 5-10-1998, together with interest on Rs. 15,000/- at Rs. 2. 50% per month from the date of plaint till realisation. The petitioner herein has filed an application praying leave to defend the suit by stating that he never borrowed any money from the respondent herein; that he approached one Gulecha for financial help during April 1997 and borrowed Rs. 15,000/-by executing a blank promissory note; that he had discharged the same and requested the said Gulecha to return the promissory note, who had assured him to return the same; during that period, the petitioner went to Kottayam, Kerala to attend his ailing mother and stayed there for one year; that after his return from Kerala, the petitioner came to know that the said Gulecha died; that the respondent herein is a stranger and denied the suit claim.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are triable issues involved in the suit and therefore the Court below is not justified in dismissing the application on the ground that the petitioner has not produced any documents in support of his defence; that the Court below ought to have seen only from the affidavit whether a reasonable defence is made out or not and which even need not be a good defence; ignoring the same, the Court below erred in deciding the issue against the petitioner at the inception itself as if the petitioner did not raise any proper issue and there is no triable issue and prayed for setting aside the order dated 31-7-2002 passed by the Court below.