V MUNUSAMY Vs. S VENKATESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present revision petition as against the order dated 5. 2. 2008 passed in I. A. No. 7124 of 2008 in O. S. No. 1832 of 2003 by 15th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff under Sections 5 and 8 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act 2003 ( Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 2003) (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act" ).

(2.) THE trial Court, while dismissing the said Interlocutory application, has inter alia opined that the revision petitioner/ petitioner/ plaintiff has come forward without asking for any relief but take note of the bonafide payment made and as such, no relief can be granted in this petition. If at all, if any payment is made or proved to be made, the Court will definitely consider the same in deciding the main case and has resultantly dismissed the said application.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner urges before this Court that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff is entitled to seek relief under the provision of the said Act and further that the trial Court should have conducted an enquiry in I. A. No. 7124 of 2008 and granted the relief to the revision petitioner/plaintiff in accordance with law and that the trial Court has not taken into account of the fact that no time is prescribed under Section 5 of the said Act and that a sum of Rs. 75,000/- has already been deposited and further sum of Rs. 1,17,750/- has been paid to the first defendant in Court and this can be treated as deposit enacted in Section 5 of the said Act and this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the trial Court and more over the interest calculated by the first defendant/respondent prima facie is in violation of the ban fixed under Tamil Nadu G. O. Ms. No. 406, Co-operation Department dated 5. 7. 1997 and that the trial Court has erred in not taking note the fact that Section 20a, 20c of Tamil Nadu Moneylenders Act 1957 as amended by Act 41/1979 are applicable to the facts of the case and therefore prays for allowing this revision petition.