FASHION SUITING AND SHIRTINGS Vs. A KRISHNAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petitioner is the tenant in O. S. No. 944 of 2003 on the file of XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The civil revision petitioner has filed an I. A. No. 19569 of 2003 before the trial Court as applicant under Order 37, Rule 3 C. P. C. praying for the grant of leave to defend the suit.

(2.) THE respondent/plaintiff has filed a counter stating that the application filed under Order 37, Rule 3 C. P. C. is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and that the applicant is liable to pay the suit claim and that the application is bereft of materials and filed with a view to protract proceedings and prayed for dismissal of the said application.

(3.) THE learned XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai has passed an order on 07. 01. 2004 in I. A. No. 19569 of 2003 holding that the applicant/defendant has no triable issues and dismissed the said application without costs. In effect the applicant/defendant was found to be not eligible to claim unconditional leave to defend the suit.