Madras High Court
Sudalayandi vs Murugan on 3 March, 2020
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.03.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
C.R.P.(MD)No.403 of 2020
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.2329 of 2020
Sudalayandi ... Petitioner/Petitioner/
Defendant
Vs.
Murugan ... Respondent/Respondent/
Plaintiff
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India against the fair and decreetal order dated 07.02.2020 in I.A.No.4 of 2020 in
O.S.No.41 of 2015, on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court),
Tenkasi.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Chengiz Khan
for Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For Respondent : Mr.M.Shema Daniel
*****
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
ORDER
Challenging the fair and final order dated 07.02.2020 passed in I.A.No.4 of 2020 in O.S.No.41 of 2015, on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Tenkasi, the defendant has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.
2. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.41 of 2015, on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Tenkasi against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) along with interest and costs. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/defendant has filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.4 of 2020 seeking a direction to the respondent/plaintiff to produce certain documents. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the case of both sides, dismissed the application, on the ground that there is no merit in the application filed by the petitioner/defendant. Challenging the said order of dismissal passed by the trial Court, the petitioner/defendant filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant would submit that he has not borrowed any money from the respondent/plaintiff and also not http://www.judis.nic.in 3 issued any cheque to the respondent/plaintiff and he borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs only) only from one Madasamy and he issued only a blank cheque for the said money and the said Madasamy also filed a petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the same is also pending. Further the petitioner stated that the said Madasamy used the remaining unfilled blank cheque and set up the respondent/plaintiff for filing the present suit, as if he had business transaction with the respondent/plaintiff. During the course of cross-examination, the respondent/plaintiff admitted that the documents are available with him and despite the said fact, the trial has dismissed the application and hence, the learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks interference by this Court.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that the petitioner/defendant admitted his signature found in the cheque and therefore, the trial Court found that in order to drag on the proceedings, the petitioner/defendant filed the application and hence, rightly dismissed the application and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.
5. Heard the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4
6. Admittedly, the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit against the petitioner/defendant in O.S.No.41 of 2015, on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Tenkasi against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only along with interest and costs. Though one of the defences taken by the petitioner/defendant that he did not have any business transaction and not borrowed any money from the respondent/plaintiff and did not issue any cheque in favour of the respondent, he submitted that he borrowed money from one Madasamy, for which he has given a blank cheque. On a perusal of the entire records, it is clear that it is for the respondent/plaintiff to establish their case that the petitioner/defendant had business transaction with him and issued the cheque only to discharge his debts. Even according to the petitioner/defendant that the respondent/plaintiff had certain documents with his possession, it is for him to produce the same before the trial Court. However, the documents as sought for by the petitioner/defendant will not be helpful to the present case on hand. In these circumstances, this Court does not find any perversity in the order passed by the trial Court.
7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also http://www.judis.nic.in 5 dismissed. However there shall be no order as to costs. It is made clear that the trial Court shall dispose of the main suit without being influenced by any of the observations given in this Civil Revision Petition as well as in the fair order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2020.
03.03.2020
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
SSL
To
The Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Tenkasi.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6 P.VELMURUGAN,J.
SSL C.R.P.(MD)No.403 of 2020 and C.M.P.(MD)No.2329 of 2020 03.03.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in