(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order passed in I.A. No.1910 of 1989 in O.S. No.9172 of 1988. Defendants 2 to 5 in O.S. No.9172 of 1988 are the petitioners herein. The plaintiff is the respondent. The plaintiff filed the above suit to recover a sum of Rs.41,511 due on a promissory note dated 1.8.1985. According to the defendants, the brothers and sisters of the plaintiff also borrowed amounts from the plaintiff and executed promissory notes for Rs.30,000. Originally notice was given to the defendants on 2.6.1987 and again on 2.9.1987. Another notice was also issued stating that the original payee was one S.Mahalingam, but the suit was filed by a different person. A reply has been given to the said notice on 18.7.1987. According to the defendants, in respect of the total borrowings of Rs.90,000, a sum of Rs. 10,000 was paid by cash with the period ending December, 1986, another sum of Rs.5,000 on 23.4.1987, a sum of Rs. 13,167 was paid by cheque and another sum of Rs.1,183 by cash in respect of timber account. All these amounts were not given credit to in the suit. After correspondence, the second defendant has paid a sum of Rs.30,000 in cash to the plaintiff and another sum of Rs. 11,000 was paid for the redemption of the jewels pledged by S.Mahalingam and those jewels belonged to the second defendant. The plaintiff's father S.Mahalingam took gold bangles and utilised the amounts got therefrom for his personal use, but he did not redeem the jewels and the interest thereupon was accumulated. The second defendant redeemed the jewels by paying Rs. 11,000 and that amount of Rs. 11,000 has to be given credit towards the borrowings, as admitted by the plaintiff. All these amounts were paid towards the amount due under the promissory notes. The plaintiff has not stated all these facts in the plaint. There is ample evidence to show that the defendants have paid interest upto 25.9.1987 towards total borrowings of Rs.90,000, which either the plaintiff or his father cannot deny. There is triable issue in the suit, which has got to be enquired in detail. Therefore, it was prayed that the defendants may be given unconditional leave to defend the suit.
(2.) ON the other hand, the plaintiff submitted that the defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000 from him on 1.8.1985 and on the same day executed a promissory note, promising to repay the amount with interest at 18% per annum. After a notice has been issued by the plaintiff and after repeated demands, the defendants have paid only a sum of Rs.4,89 towards the arrears of interest. Thus the defendants have failed and neglected to pay the principal and interest due on the amount borrowed under the suit promissory note. The suit summons was served on the defendants and they have entered appearance through their counsel on 22.1.1989, after serving a copy on the plaintiffs counsel. It is not correct to state that the plaintiff failed to give credit to the amounts paid by the defendants. There is no valid defence for the defendants in this promissory note suit. Therefore, it was prayed that a decree may be passed in favour of the plaintiff without granting any unconditional leave to defend the suit.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondent herein.