T. KALAIMANI Vs. P.T. SAMBANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 15.04.2015 made in I.A.No.3541 of 2015 in O.S.No.4923 of 2014 on the file of the II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) The petitioner is defendant and respondent is plaintiff in O.S.No.4923 of 2014. The respondent filed the said suit for recovery of money under Order 37, Rule 2 C.P.C. According to the respondent, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of cheque bearing No.699242, dated 27.11.2010 drawn on Indian Bank, High Court Branch. The petitioner received the money and subsequently, did not repay the same. The respondent issued notice dated 01.10.2013 to the petitioner. The petitioner received the said notice on 03.10.2013, but did not repay the amount due and did not send any reply for the notice. Hence, respondent filed the said suit. The petitioner filed I.A.No.3541 of 2015 under Order 37, Rule 3 C.P.C. for unconditional leave to defend the suit.

(3.) According to the petitioner, both the petitioner and respondent are advocates and they are using same chamber. The petitioner has not borrowed any money from the respondent and claim of the respondent will not fall within the ambit of Order 37, Rule 2 C.P.C. The petitioner in the affidavit contended that the amount was withdrawn on behalf of the respondent as respondent has to pay the amount to real estate agent one Murali. The said Murali came to the respondent's house with politicians and created trouble to the respondent. The respondent requested the petitioner to withdraw the money from the bank to pay the same to Murali, the real estate agent. The petitioner and respondent went to the bank and respondent requested the bank official to pay the amount to the petitioner as he could not wait to receive the amount. Since the cheque books and two unused cell phones kept in a locker lent by the respondent in the chamber were missing, petitioner gave stop payment and also gave complaint to the Inspector of Police, D2 police station, Law college on 07.08.2013 and C.S.R. was issued by the police station. In the said circumstances, the respondent instituted criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Vellore, in C.C.No.201/2013 for offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No.30050 of 2013 before this Court and this Court granted stay of the said proceedings. The petitioner has valid defence and therefore, prayed for leave to defend the suit.