K BALARAMAN Vs. P RENUKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in O. S. No. 299 of 2003 on the file of principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore is the revision petitioner. THE said suit was filed by the respondent herein for recovery of money based on two promissory notes and one cheque. In the said suit, the petitioner has filed his written statement stating that he borrowed only Rs. 9 ,00 0 /-on 10. 10. 2000 for which the respondent insisted to pay interest at the rate of 60% per annum and also obtained a blank cheque and a promissory note. THEreafter, the petitioner herein has filed an application in I. A. No. 193 of 2006 under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC seeking permission of the Court to file additional written statement to the effect that he executed two mortgage deeds on 19. 03. 1998 and 28. 12. 1999 and borrowed a sum of Rs. 25 ,000 /-and Rs. 20,000/- respectively and on the date of execution of the mortgage deeds, the respondent has obtained the signature of the petitioner in blank papers and also in two blank cheques. THE trial court was of the view that the said pleas taken by the petitioner herein are inconsistent dismissed the said application.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has borrowed Rs. 9 ,000 /-on 10. 10. 2000 and the respondent insisted to pay 60% interest per annum and obtained his signatures in blank cheques and blank promisory notes. THE blank promisory note was made use of by the plaintiff illegally as if a sum of Rs. 1 ,00,000 /- was paid to the defendant and filed the suit. THE blank cheque was filled up illegally for Rs. 35 ,000 /-based on which C. C. No. 16 of 2000 was filed. Similarly, on 20. 10. 2000, a sum of Rs. 5 ,000 /- was received by the petitioner and at that time, she obtained the petitioner's signature in blank promissory notes, cheques etc. , which were used to falsely prepare a promissory note for rs. 50,000/- to show that the petitioner received that amount and a cheque was filled up for Rs. 20,000/- as if the petitioner has drawn the same in favour of the respondent for acknowledging receipt of Rs. 20,000/- from her. Prior to this transaction, the petitioner executed two mortgage deeds dated 19. 03. 1998 and 28. 12. 1999 for Rs. 25 ,000 /- and Rs. 20,000/-respectively, on that date also the respondent obtained his signature in two blank papers and two blank cheques as security for repayment of interest. THE above said facts were omitted to be mentioned in the written statement already filed, hence, in order to bring proper facts, he intended to file additional written statement; that the court below failed to take note of the above said facts and erroneously held that it is not open to the petitioner, as a defendant to take inconsistent plea and dismissed the application.

(3.) APPLYING the above said ratio laid down by the honourable Supreme Court to the case on hand, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has taken a plea that his signatures were obtained by the respondent in blank pronotes, papers and cheques and he want to extend the same plea to say that even at the time of execution of two mortgage deeds stated above the respondent has taken his signatures in blank papers etc. , by filing additional written statement, which do not result in causing grave and irretrievable prejudice to the respondent herein or displacing her completely and the respondent take advantage of inconsistency, if permissible under law.