A SRIRAM Vs. G PADMAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/defendant has preferred this Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 29. 12. 2006 in I. A. No. 18689 of 2006 in O. S. No. 6272 of 2006 passed by the learned III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner/defendant under order 37 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code to grant unconditional leave to defend the suit.

(2.) WHEN the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner/defendant. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

(3.) ON perusing the Memorandum of grounds filed in the present Revision filed on behalf of the revision petitioner it is quite evident that it is the stand of the revision petitioner/defendant that the impugned order of the trial Court in I. A. No. 18689 of 2006 in O. S. No. 6272 of 2006 dated 29. 12. 2006 is against law and weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and the trial Court has failed to consider that the pro-note itself is a forged one and further the trial Court has committed an error in considering that there is no clear averment with the revision petitioner signature has been forged etc. , and the trial Court has not taken into account of another fact that the pro-note was a fabricated one and that the respondent has not sent any notice to the petitioner in demanding principal and interest sum and looking at from any angle, the order passed by the trial Court suffers from serious infirmities and illegalities and therefore prays for allowing the Civil Revision Petition in the interest of justice.