- (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. O.S.No.51 of 2005 was resisted by the defendant by filing a written statement wherein he denied that he borrowed any money from the plaintiff and the promissory note is only a forged one. It was further pointed out in the written statement that the Promissory Note was alleged to have been executed on 24.12.2001, but, the suit was filed after the limitation period. Pending O.S.NO.51 of 2005, the defendant in the suit filed an interim application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. to reject the plaint. The main contention of the defendant is that the promissory note was alleged to have been executed on 24.12.2001 and the suit was filed on 17.12.2004. When the suit was filed on 17.12.2004, the entire court fee was not paid and there was deficit of Court fee payable by the plaintiff. The suit papers were returned by the Office for compliance and only on 18.10.2005, the plaintiff re-presented the suit papers with a petition to condone the delay of 287 days to re-present the papers. No petition was filed under Sec.149 C.P.C. seeking permission of the Court to pay the deficit Court fee. Even if such petition was filed, he was not put on notice to oppose the same and therefore, the suit is to be rejected on the ground of limitation. This was resisted by the plaintiff by filing a counter, wherein it is stated that the condone delay petition was allowed and therefore, the permission was deemed to have been granted by the trial court. Further, it was stated in the counter that the trial has already commenced and therefore, the present application is only to delay the suit proceedings.
(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. The very same respondent in C.R.P.No.3952 of 2007 filed another suit in O.S.NO.59 of 2005 in the Sub Court, Gudiyatham against the revision petitioner in C.R.P. No.3953 of 2007. In O.S.No.59 of 2005 also, the plaintiff stated that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,24,620/- on 24.12.2001 agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of Rs.2/- per 100 per month. In evidence of the said borrowing, the defendant executed a Promissory Note on 24.12.2001. As the defendant has not paid any amount, the plaintiff issued a notice dated 10.10.2003 calling upon the defendant to pay the amount. Though the notice was acknowledged by the defendant, he did not come forward to pay the amount and therefore, O.S.No.59 of 2005 has been filed directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.3,84,278/- with future interest.;