M NAMACHIVAYAM Vs. M THIRUNAVUKKARASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent in both the revision petitions is one and the same and the question involved in both the revision petitions are also identical in nature and therefore, a common order is being passed to dispose of both the revision petition.

(2.) THE respondent in C.R.P.No.3952 of 2007 filed O.S.No.51 of 2005 for directing the defendant in the suit to pay a sum of Rs.1,87,885/- with future interest. According to the plaintiff in O.S.No.51 of 2005, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,09,618/- on 24.12.2001 agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of Rs.2/- per hundred per month. In evidence of the said borrowing, the defendant executed a Promissory Note dated 24.12.2001. As the defendant did not make any payment, a notice dated 10.11.2003 was issued calling upon the defendant to pay the amount. Though the defendant acknowledged the notice, he did not come forward to make the payment and hence, O.S.No.51 of 2005 has been filed by the plaintiff on the file of the Sub Judge, Gudiyatham.

(3.) THE trial Court by order dated 26.07.2007, dismissed I.A.No.155 of 2006 by holding that the defendant though has a liberty to question the order passed in the condone delay petition, he did not do so and therefore, he is not entitled to get an order to reject the plaint. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant in O.S.No.51 of 2005 has filed C.R.P.No.3952 of 2007.