K DEVENDRAN Vs. K P MADHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order passed in I. A. No. 9107 of 2007 in O. S. No. 1988 of 2007, a petition filed under Order XXXVII Rule 3 (5) of CPC on the file of the XIIth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is under challenge in this revision. The defendant in O. S. No. 1988 of 2007 had filed the said application seeking unconditional leave to the petitioner/defendant to defend the summary suit by way of filing written statement in O. S. No. 1988 of 2007.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and considered their respective submissions.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the defendant has not borrowed any amount under the impugned cheque dated 20. 2. 2006 for Rs. 3,27,500/ -. According to him, he was appointed by the plaintiff as a power of Attorney agent to sell his lands and that on the basis of the power of Attorney the defendant had negotiated with third party for the sale of the said land and had issued a cheque dated 20. 2. 2006 for Rs. 3,27,500/ -. But, he had not borrowed any amount under the impugned cheque dated 20. 2. 2006. Even in paragraph 8 to the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that the defendant is liable to render accounts in respect of the sale transaction entered into between the third parties and the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff under the deed of power of attorney.