G KARTHIK Vs. SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent/plaintiff filed suits in O. S. No. 2188 and 2189 of 2003 against the petitioners/defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 62,000/- together with interest on Rs. 50,000/- at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation.

(2.) THE averments contained in the affidavits of the petitioners/defendants filed in support of the I. As are as follows: the 1st petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- through one M/s Navakar Finance and the amount was paid to him in the name of S. K. Finance on 8. 3. 2001. At the time of obtaining the loan, his signature was obtained in three blank forms purported to be promissory notes. His wife, the 2nd petitioner was also present at that time and she was requested to sign as a witness and accordingly, she also signed as a witness in three blank forms. The 1st petitioner repaid the entire amount with interest on 7. 9. 2001 itself and when he requested for the return of the above said blank forms, the said persons represented that they are only brokers and that the blank forms have been forwarded to the actual financiers and that they will collect the same from them and return to him. The said brokers were delaying the return of the blank forms and told the 1st petitioner that the forms have been destroyed and that he need not worry about them. Now, three different suits have been filed in three different names as if the petitioners had borrowed on three occasions from them. The transactions alleged in the suits are entirely false and there is no such entity as Suresh and Sons and Adgro Advertising. The pro-notes produced along with the plaint were not executed by the petitioners and the respondent/plaintiff in the respective suits is trying to misuse the above said blank forms and the petitioners are not liable to pay any amount to them. The respondent/plaintiff in the respective suits has not come with clean hands. The suit claim is false and fictitious and hence, it is prayed that the Court may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioners/defendants to defend the suits in O. S. Nos. 2188 and 2189/2003.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the respective respondent/plaintiff, the following