K SENTHILNATHAN Vs. CHANDRAKANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in all the Civil Revision Petitions is defendant in all the suits and respondents in all the Civil Revision petitions are the plaintiffs in respective suits. The respondents filed the said suits against the petitioner under Order XXXVII of C.P.C for recovery of money. According to the respondents, the petitioner borrowed money from them and executed respective promissory notes. The major portion of the amount borrowed is by cheque and a small portion was paid by cash. The petitioner agreed to repay the same together with interest at 18% p.a. The petitioner repaid only a portion of the principal amount borrowed and interest. The petitioner failed to pay the balance amount inspite of repeated demands by the respondents. In the circumstances, the respondents issued notice through their counsel to the petitioner. The petitioner received the said notice but did not pay the amounts due and also did not send any reply to the said notice. In the said circumstances, the respondents have filed the suit for recovery of money.

(2.) The petitioner filed applications under Order 37 Rule 3 read with Section 115 of C.P.C for unconditional leave to defend the case. According to the petitioner, the respondents are strangers to him. He has not met them and borrowed the money from them and he denied the execution of promissory note. He contended that it is strange that the part of the alleged borrowed money is paid by cash and part of the amount is by cheque. The petitioner has not executed any promissory note. The petitioner is running a hospital by name and style Sri Devi Hospital and several patients pay by cheque and cash. According to the petitioner, it is to be seen as to what purpose the cheques were deposited in his account. More than 110 suits were filed by different parties against the petitioner. The petitioner has valid defence and there are triable issues in the suit. Injustice would be caused to the petitioner if the suits were decided summarily without verifying signatures in the suit promissory notes.

(3.) The respondents filed separate counter affidavits in all the above applications and reiterated the averments in the plaint. According to the respondents, the petitioner borrowed money through his finance agent. The petitioner wanted entire amount to be paid by cash as he is in urgent need of money. When the respondent declined to lend entire amount by cash, the petitioner requested a portion of the amount to be paid by cheque and balance by cash. Having borrowed the money and executed promissory note, the petitioner is falsely denying the signature in the promissory notes. The respondents issued notice. The petitioner after receiving the notice has not sent any reply. The petitioner has encashed the cheques issued by the respondents and is falsely alleging that petitioner does not know the respondents. There is no valid defence or triable issues for the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the applications.