R VARADHAN Vs. M HARIGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by the defendant in the suit in o. S. No. 3691 of 2003 on the file of the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai questioning the legality of the order passed by the trial court in refusing to grant leave to defend.

(2.) HEARD Mr. N. Anand Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. G. N. Ashoklal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioner has contended that even though the suit promissory notes were executed by three persons, the respondent filed the suit only against the revision petitioner and therefore the revision petitioner was constrained to file the petition before the court below seeking leave of the court to defend. Further, according to him, the other two promisors are the principal debtors and the revision petitioner stood surety for the due repayment of the loan. Hence he has urged that he has got a valid defence in the suit.