This court disposed of a civil revision petition challenging an order dismissing an application to leave to defend a summary suit for money recovery. The High Court found no irregularity in the lower court's order. It dismissed the revision petition.
The civil revision petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRP.NPD.No.3287 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP.NPD.No.3287 of 2017
and CMP.No.15326 of 2017
M.Ramadas ..Petitioner
Vs.
M.Sakkarai Mohammed
..Respondent
PRAYER:
The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC
against the fair and decretal order of the XVII Additional Judge at
Chennai dated 17.02.2017 in IA.No.167 of 2016 in OS.No.3597 of
2016.
For Petitioner : M/s.Nathan and Asso.
For Respondent : Mr.A.Abdul Ravoof
ORDER
The present civil revision petition is directed as against the
fair and decretal order of the XVII Additional Judge at Chennai dated 17.02.2017 passed in IA.No.167 of 2016 in OS.No.3597 of 2016 thereby dismissed the petition to leave to defend the suit.
1/4
CRP.NPD.No.3287 of 2017
the respondent for recovery of money on the strength of the pronote issued by the petitioner herein. The case of the plaintiff is that the property admeasuring 3200 sq.ft situated at Plot Nos.9,10 and 11 bearing Door No.10/241A, Maps Main Road, Meyyur, Sadurangapattinam, Kalpakkam 603 103 sold out to the petitioner herein. The petitioner promised to pay the entire sale consideration before the registration of sale deed during the month of February 2015. At the time of signing the sale deed dated 02.02.2015 in the Registrar's Office, Thirukazhukundram, the petitioner begged him stating that he was short of funds of Rs.10 lakhs and promised the respondent that he would pay the balance sale consideration within a short period. On the same day, he also executed pronote for balance sale consideration of Rs.10 lakhs and also issued two post dated cheques. Believing his words, the respondent executed sale deed in his favour on the same day. Thereafter, the petitioner evaded
payments of balance sale consideration and also he requested not to present the cheques. Therefore, the respondent herein filed summary suit
on the strength of the pronote issued by the petitioner herein.
2/4
CRP.NPD.No.3287 of 2017
pronote for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs since he paid the entire sale consideration on the date of registration of sale deed. Further the alleged pronote was obtained from the petitioner on coercion and compulsion. Therefore, the petitioner has valid defence to defend the suit. Even then, the petitioner did not produce any piece of evidence to show that he filed complaint alleging that the pronote was obtained on compulsion and threatening. If at all it was obtained from him on compulsion or coercion, he would have lodged complaint before the jurisdictional Police Station. The petitioner did not have any knowledge about any complaint before any police station. Therefore, the court below rightly dismissed the petition to leave to defend and this Court finds no irregularity or infirmity
in the order passed by the court below.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No order as to
costs.
16.02.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No
3/4
CRP.NPD.No.3287 of 2017
Internet : Yes/No lok
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
lok
To
The XVII Additional Judge,
City Civil Court at Chennai
CRP.NPD.No.3287 of 2017
4/4
CRP.NPD.No.3287 of 2017
16.02.2021
5/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the dismissal of the petitioner's application to leave to defend a summary suit for recovery of money is revisible under Section 115 of the CPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.Ramadas
M.Sakkarai Mohammed
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
