T.R. SAMRAJ Vs. V. THULASIMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order made in I.A. No. 142 of 2008 in O.S. No. 18 of 2003 by the Sub Court, Palani, dtd. 22/6/2011.

(2.) The facts of the case are that originally, the revision petitioner/defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,30,000.00 from one Venkatachalam, by executing a promissory note. The said Venkatachalam as a plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of the above amount from the revision petitioner/defendant. Pending suit, Venkatachalam died and his legal heirs/wife and minor children were brought on record as plaintiffs 2 to 4 in the suit. After the examination of plaintiffs' side witnesses, when the suit was posted for cross examination, the revision petitioner/defendant filed the present I.A to reject the plaint, which was dismissed by the Court below, against which, this revision is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant would contend that the suit promissory note is a fabricated one and that the petitioner did not borrow any money from Venkatachalam. When the plaint was presented on 14/2/2002, it was returned for want of court fee and to comply with other defects, but without representing the plaint within the stipulated time, the plaintiffs presented the plaint along with petition to condone the delay of 279 days in paying the deficit court fee and the Court below without ordering notice to the petitioner, condoned the delay on terms, thereby, the valuable rights of the petitioner lost. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present I.A for rejection of plaint, but the Court below erroneously dismissed the same. Therefore, the learned counsel prays to set aside the impugned order. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions:-