(1.) THESE revisions are preferred against the orders made in i. A. No. 14236/1996 in O. S. No. 5126/1996; I. A. No. 13920 /1996 in O. S. No. 4584/1996; i. A. No. 13918/1996 in O. S. No. 4579 /1996; I. A. No. 13916/1996 in O. S. No. 4575/1996; i. A. No. 13917 /1996 in O. S. No. 4578/1996; I. A. No. 13889/1996 in O. S. No. 4581 /1996; i. A. No. 14234/1996 in O. S. No. 5122/1996; I. A. No. 12699 /1997 in O. S. No. 4331/1996; i. A. No. 13921/1996 in O. S. No. 4580 /1996; I. A. No. 14235/1996 in O. S. No. 5125/1996; i. A. No. 15104 /1997 in O. S. No. 5762/1996; I. A. No. 13919/1996 in O. S. No. 4583 /1996; i. A. No. 14237/1996 in O. S. No. 5127/1996; on the file of the VIII Assistant Judge, city Civil Court, Madras, dismissing the petitions filed under Or. 37 R. 3 CPC declining permission to defend the suits. Defendants are the Revision petitioners.
(2.) SUITS have been filed for recovery of the amount on the basis of the promissory notes. Case of the Plaintiffs (different Plaintiffs in all the cases; but the Defendants are the same in all the suits) is that for the value received by Account Payee cheque, the Defendants have executed the suit Promissory Note in favour of Plaintiffs, agreeing to repay the same with interest. Inspite of repeated demand and notice, the Defendants have not paid the amount. Hence the suit for recovery of amount.
(3.) THE learned Assistant Judge dismissed all the applications finding that the Defendants have not produced any document showing the transaction between them and M/s. Sirish Kumar and Bros. Finding that no documents have been produced by the Defendants showing that the suits have been instituted at the instance of M/s. Sirish Kumar and Bros. , the learned Judge held that on the basis of interim order, leave cannot be granted to defend the suit. Non issuance of reply notice by the Defendants was also pointed out by the learned counsel.