LAWS(MAD)-2007-7-209

B RAJENDRAN Vs. S KANNAN

Decided On July 13, 2007
B. RAJENDRAN Appellant
V/S
S. KANNAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A challenge is made to an order of the learned VIII assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I. A. No. 20399 of 2006, whereby leave to defend the suit in O. S. No. 3042 of 2005, a suit filed on the strength of promissory note, sought by the defendant/revision petitioner was denied.

(2.) THE court heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. THE court is of the considered opinion that not even a notice is necessary to the respondent, since this civil revision petition does not require even an admission before this court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the submissions made and looking into the materials available, the court is of the considered opinion that this court has no option than to dismiss the civil revision petition. The defendant borrowed Rs. 1 lakh agreeing to repay the said amount together with 12% interest and has executed a promissory note. It is not in controversy that the suit promissory note bore the signature of the petitioner herein. The petitioner has never denied the execution of the promissory note, but has contended that he borrowed the said amount from one Murugesan and the promissory note was given to him and there was no privity of contract between him and the plaintiff and the amount was also paid back. If to be so, the promissory note would have been got back, but not done so. Further, in the instant case, once the execution of the promissory note is an admitted fact, the alleged defence made by the defendant did not bring forth any triable issues. The court has to necessarily proceed with the suit and to pass decree. The order of the lower court is a well reasoned one and it does not require any interference, since the alleged defence by the defendant are simply vexatious and it could be denied. Accordingly, this civil revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is also dismissed. .