N SEKAR Vs. V MOHANASUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition has been preferred against the order passed in I. A. No. 2915 of 2004 in O. S. No. 6115 of 2003 on the file of the Court of II Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai. The suit was filed by the plaintifif for recovery of Rs. 1,75,000/- from the defendants on a promissory note dated 19. 10. 2000. The defendants filed I. A. NO. 2915 of 2004 under Order XXXVII Rule 3 CPC to grant unconditional leave to defend the suit and the said application was dismissed by the learned trial Judge. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal , the defendants have preferred this revision petition.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would contend that they have got a valid defence in the suit. To substantiate this contention, the learned counsel would rely on the promissory note filed by the plaintiff dated 19. 10. 2000, According to the learned counsel in the corner of the said document, the document number has been mentioned as 0654 dated 15. 3. 2000 but the promissory note is said to have been executed only on 19th October 2000. This cannot be a ground to grant leave to defend the defendant in the suit because admittedly both the defendants have signed in the suit promissory note dated 19. 10. 2000 which has been superscribed as "on demand promissory note". Under the said promissory note, the defendants have agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 36% per annum to the plaintiff on demand, which satisfies all the requirements which are needed for a "promissory note" under Negotiable Instrumentns Act. "

(3.) THE learned counsel relying on a decision reported in V. Samuel vs Thabak Finance Corporation rep. By its Partner S. Madanchand and Jhabak (2001 (3)CTC 420) would contend that this Court has granted leave to the defendant to defend the suit in a similar situation. But a careful reading of the facts of the case will go to show that the claim in the said case was made by the plaintiff basing on a voucher for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- dt 27. 6. 1990 and it has been contended in the said case by the defendant that no consideration was passed under the said voucher. Only under such circumstances under Order 37 Rule 3 CPC, this Court has granted permission to the defendant to defend the suit but that is not the case herein.