(1.) THE plaintiff, in O.S. No. 4499 of 1976, on the file of the learned VII Assistant Judge City Civil Court, Madras, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. He instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 5,142 together with further interest on Rs. 3,000 at 24 per cent per annum from 23rd August, 1976, to the date of decree and thereafter at 6 per cent per annum and for costs. The suit was laid on the basis of a promissory note dated 2nd July, 1973 executed by the respondents in favour of the petitioner herein under Order 37, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondents herein filed I.A. No. 21760 of 1976 for grant of unconditional leave to defend the suit and the application was dismissed, as having been filed beyond the stipulated time It must also be mentioned that the dismissal of I.A. No. 21760 of 1976 has become final However, the respondents filed I.A. No. 21761 of 1976 praying for the dismissal of the suit on the ground that the suit had been instituted by the petitioner herein in contravention of Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Act XVI of 1976. The learned VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, applied the principles laid down in R.M.M. Ramanathan Chettiar v. Ramaswami Pillai and Anr. : AIR1957Mad780 and allowed I.A. No. 21761 of 1976 thereby dismissing the suit as not maintainable.
(2.) IN this civil revision petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner raised two contentions. The first is that having regard to the dismissal of I.A No. 21760 of 1976, the respondents are precluded from appearing in the cause and contest the same as per the provisions of Order 37, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, and the second is that the dismissal of the suit as having been instituted in contravention of Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Act XVI of 1976 is unsustainable.
(3.) THE result is that the order of the Court below is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and there will be a decree in favour of the petitioner in the suit as prayed for. No costs in the Civil Revision Petition.