CRP.No.999 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.08.2025 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI CRP.No.999 of 2025 S.Venkatesan ...Petitioner Vs. V.Devasena ...Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order dated 04.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in O.S.No.5070 of 2020 on the file of the II Assistant City Civil Court. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mukunth, SC for Mr.M.Ashwin Kumar For Respondent : Mr.K.Jayaraman ORDER The present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff challenging the order dated 04.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in O.S.No.5070 of 2020 by the II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. Page No.1 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.999 of 2025 2. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent and I have also perused the materials available on record. 3. It is seen that the suit has been filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- together with interest, by invoking provisions of Order XXXVII r/w. Order VII Rule 1 of CPC, in which the respondent/ defendant took out an application for leave to defend the suit in I.A.No.3 of 2021. The trial court, on enquiry has thought it fit to grant unconditional leave to the defendant to defend the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed. 4. Mr.S.Mukunth, the learned Senior counsel took me through the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the application for leave to defend and also the averments in the plaint. 5. It is seen that the defendant has admitted the execution of the promissory note dated 12.09.2018 and the signature contained in it. Page No.2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.999 of 2025 However, it is the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff has forcibly obtained the signature in the promissory note. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent, however submitted that, the plaintiff has cooked up the suit documents as if he has in turn availed a loan to pay the respondent/defendant and that he is servicing interest. 7. However, all these matters requires evidence to be adduced by the parties. Therefore, the order granting leave to the respondent/ defendant cannot be found fault with. 8. At the same time, the trial Court ought to have put the defendant on terms, considering that the defendant has executed the promissory note even in the year 2018 and the suit has been filed only in the year 2020. If it is really the case of the defendant that he was forced or threatened to execute the promissory note in the year 2018, the silence maintained on the side of the respondent/defendant for about two years remains unexplained even in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking leave to defend. Page No.3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.999 of 2025 9. In the light of the above, though trialable issue arise, the trial Court ought to have passed conditional orders, granting leave. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order of the trial Court dated 04.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in O.S.No.5070 of 2020 is modified to the extent that the defendant/respondent is granted unconditional leave to defend the suit, on condition that, the defendant pays 50% of the suit claim within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. With the aforesaid directions, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of. No costs. 28.08.2025 skt Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No To The II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. Page No.4 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.999 of 2025 P.B. BALAJI , J. skt CRP.No.999 of 2025 28.08.2025 Page No.5 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis