MOHAMMAD SADAT ALI @ SIRAJ Vs. SYED ATHER ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 9.12.2013 passed in IA No. 587 of 2008 in OS No. 887 of 2008 wherein and whereby the learned VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXVII Rule 4 C.P.C. seeking leave to defend the suit. The petitioner is the defendant in the aforesaid suit filed by the respondent -plaintiff for recovery of money based on alleged documents said to have been executed by the petitioner. In the suit, the petitioner filed IA No. 587 of 2008 to grant leave to defend the suit stating that there are so many facts to be elicited before the Court with regard to the filing of the suit and also with regard to the documents filed by the respondent in the suit. The respondent filed counter contending that the petitioner received Rs. 2,00,000/ - from his brother Syed Mazher Ali on 15.10.2002 under an agreement promising to repay the same within two or three years. It was agreed that the petitioner should pay Rs. 75,000/ - towards damages if he commits default in payment of the amount. As the brother of the petitioner was leaving India, the petitioner executed a deed of undertaking dated 4.3.2005 acknowledging the loan amount and promising to repay the same to the respondent. The petitioner is also said to have issued two cheques for Rs. 2,75,000/ - on 3.11.2005 to the respondent. It is the case of the respondent that in spite of repeated demands and legal notice dated 26.12.2005, the petitioner did not repay the amount, but issued reply notice dated 6.1.2006. Hence, the respondent is entitled to recover Rs. 2,75,000/ - along with interest from the petitioner. The respondent also initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner and took back the original documents filed along with the plaint for filing the same in the criminal cases initiated by him. According to the respondent, since the petitioner did not mention as to what are the triable issues involved in the suit, he is not entitled for grant of leave to defend the suit.

(2.) DURING the course of enquiry, Exs. P1 to P6 were got marked on behalf of the petitioner and Exs. R1 to R11 were got marked on behalf of the respondent. The trial Court after hearing both sides and considering the material available on record dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner failed to establish that there is a triable issue in the suit and, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of leave to defend the suit by filing written statement. Hence the revision petition.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order.