Dr. Murali Manohar v. Anik P. Jain, Huf

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06.06.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI C.R.P.(PD)Nos.1747 to 1754 of 2017 & C.M.P.Nos.8277 to 8284 of 2017 C.R.P.(PD)No.1747 of 2017 Dr.Murali Manohar .. Petitioner Vs.

1.Ms.Anik P.Jain, HUF Represented by its Manager and Kartha, Anik P.Jain No.1088, Poonamallee High Road Vimalachal Apartments Vepery Chennai - 07.

2.Media One Global Entertainment Ltd Represented by its Director Dr.Murali Manohar No.26, Razia House Saraswathi Street, Mahalingapuram Chennai - 34. .. Respondent

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 24.10.2016 made in I.A.No.9799 of 2016 in O.S.No.3054 of 2016 on the file of the XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Sesubalanraja COMMON ORDER The Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 24.10.2016 made in I.A.Nos.9799 to 9806 of 2016 in O.S.Nos.3054 to 3061 of 2016 on the file of the XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. In all the civil revision petitions, the issues are one and the same and hence, they are disposed of by this common order.

3. The petitioner is the second defendant, first respondents are the plaintiffs and second respondent is the first defendant in all the O.S.Nos.3054 to 3061 of 2016. The first respondents filed the suits for recovery of money. According to the first respondents,

petitioner is the director of second respondent and he borrowed the following amount from the first respondents in all the suits: CRP and O.S.

Amount Interest numbers (O.S.No.3054/2016) Rs.1,01,600/- 2.25% PM (O.S.No.3055/2016) Rs.1,01,600/- 2.25% PM (O.S.No.3056/2016) Rs.1,52,400/- 2.25% PM (O.S.No.3057/2016) Rs.2,54,000/- 2.25% PM (O.S.No.3058/2016) Rs.2,54,000/- 2.25% PM (O.S.No.3059/2016) Rs.1,52,400/- 2.25% PM (O.S.No.3060/2016) Rs.1,01,600/- 2.25% PM (O.S.No.3061/2016) Rs.1,01,600/- 2.25% PM Second respondent and petitioner executed the promissory notes promising to repay the said amounts with interest at 2.25% per month.

4. The petitioner and second respondent paid only a part of the amount towards principal amount in all the suits and paid interest only for the period of 24 months and subsequently, he did not pay the balance amounts. The first respondents issued notice.

The petitioner and the second respondent did not send any reply. The first respondents filed the suits in O.S.Nos.3054 to 3061 of 2016 under Order XXXVII of C.P.C invoking summary proceedings.

5. After entering appearance and following the procedure by the first respondents, the petitioner and second respondent filed separate applications for leave to defend the suits. The petitioner has filed I.A.Nos.9799 to 9806 of 2016 to grant leave to defend the suits in O.S.Nos.3054 to 3061 of 2016.

6. According to the petitioner, he did not borrow money from the first respondent and borrowed money only from one Parag P.Jain. At that time, the said Parag P.Jain took blank promissory notes from the petitioner and second respondent. The petitioner has repaid the entire amount, but the said Parag P.Jain misused the blank promissory notes and on that basis, the first respondents in all the civil revision petitions filed the suits. The first respondents are not entitled to claim interest at 2.25% per month. But they are entitled to claim only 12% per annum. There are triable issues in the suit and prayed for unconditional leave to defend the suits.

7. The first respondents filed counter affidavits denying the

averments made in the affidavits filed in support of the applications and referring to the averments made in the plaints.

8. Before the learned Judge, the first respondents marked Exs.R1 to Ex.R3. The learned Judge considering the provisions of Order XXXVII of C.P.C and presumptions under the Negotiable instruments Act, dismissed the applications holding that no triable issues arose in the suits.

9. Against the order of dismissal dated 24.10.2016 made in I.A.Nos.9799 to 9806 of 2016, the present civil revision petitions are filed by the petitioner.

10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the learned Judge failed to take into account the fact that the suits are filed by the members of the same family on the same set of allegations. The first respondents have stated that the petitioner has paid only part of the amount towards principal amount and interest for 24 months, but he has not produced any documents to substantiate the same. The first respondents are not

entitled to claim the interest at 2.25% per month. The learned Judge failed to see the rate of interest, on which the first respondents are entitled to charge is an issue to be tried in the suits.

12. The further contention of the petitioner is that he has not borrowed money from the first respondents. According to the petitioner, he borrowed money only from Parag P.Jain and executed the blank promissory notes. Subsequently, the petitioner has repaid the entire amounts borrowed from Parag P.Jain, but he did not return the blank promissory notes and misused the same for the purpose of filing the suits.

13. These contentions are not supported by any documents. These contentions cannot be accepted for the reason that when the first respondents issued notice setting out the averments in the plaint and calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount, the petitioner did not send any reply denying the said averments. The petitioner is the Director of the second respondent under Media One Global Entertainment Limited Company. As a prudent business man, he ought to have not only sent reply to the notice to the first

respondents, but also sent notice to Parag P.Jain setting out the averments in the affidavits filed in support of the petitions to leave to defend the suits.

14. In view of the failure on the part of the petitioner to send reply or to send notices to Parag P.Jain, the averment to defend the suits now put forth by the petitioner is only an after thought and it is not acceptable.

15. The learned Judge has properly exercised the power conferred on him, considered all the materials available on records and judgments relied on by the counsel for the first respondents, dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner. There is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court with the order of the learned trial Judge, dated 24.10.2016.

16. In the result, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

06.06.2017 Index : Yes/No dm/kj

V.M.VELUMANI, J.

dm/kj To The XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

C.R.P.(PD)Nos.1747 to 1754 of 2017 & C.M.P.Nos.8277 to 8284 of 2017 06.06.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in