(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of Indian, to set aside the order dated 09.07.2026 in I.A.No.1 of 2026 in O.S.No.7065 of 2025 on the file of the I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.)

1. The defendant, aggrieved by the order in I.A.No.1 of 2026 in O.S.No.7065 of 2025, is the revision petitioner.

2. I have heard Mr.P.Anbazhagan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.G.Sampath, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The revision petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of an application filed seeking leave to defend the summary suit filed against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting my attention to the triable issues that arise for consideration and that have been expressly set out in the affidavit in support of the leave to defend application, would contend that the Trial Court has erroneously dismissed the application seeking leave, without noticing the settled legal position that when the defendant is able to make out triable issues arising for consideration in the suit, then he is entitled to unconditional leave. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anand Narayan Shukla Vs. Jagat Dhari, reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 827 and the order of the Telangana High Court in CRP.No.345 of 2025 dated 18.03.2026 in the matter of Shaik Abdul Khader Vs. G.Anil Dutt Kamble.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that absolutely no triable issues arise for consideration and the grounds raised in the affidavit filed in support of the leave to defend application have admittedly not been substantiated by any documentary evidence and therefore, the Trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the application for leave to defend. In support of his contentions, he has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalamani Tex and others Vs. P.Balasubramaniam, reported in 2021 (2) CTC 357, decisions of this Court in Indra Devi Bhura Vs. Nitin Sataya and another, reported in 2024 (3) TLNJ 577 (Civil), 357, Meenakshisundaram Vs. N.Rangasami reported in 1996 (1) MLJ 297, K.Mani Vs. Elumalai, reported in (2003) 2 MLJ 190, and T.K.Kulundaivelu Vs. K.P.Nallusamy, reported in 2021 (4) CTC 520. The learned counsel for the respondent therefore prays for dismissal of the revision petition.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

6. The respondent, as plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of monies due from the petitioner, based on the execution of a promissory note. The execution of the promissory note is not denied by the petitioner. However, the case of the revision petitioner is that the promissory note was executed only as a security in connection with financial transactions between the revision petitioner and the respondent. Further, according to the learned counsel petitioner, he borrowed only a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- from the respondent and that he has already repaid more than Rs.10,50,000/- and that despite full and final settlement of the dues payable to the respondent, the respondent did not return the promissory note and the signed blank cheque to the revision petitioner. In fact, this is the stand that has been taken by the revision petitioner even in the pre suit reply notice dated 01.12.2025, in response to the pre suit notice 24.11.2025.

7. On a perusal of the exchange of notices, I find that the plaintiff has alleged that the defendant has borrowed Rs.7 lakhs on various dates and that on 08.04.2023, he executed a promissory note, acknowledging the borrowing of Rs.7 lakhs, agreeing to repay the same, together with interest at 12% per annum. Even in the pre suit notice, the plaintiff himself admits that the defendant has repaid Rs.4 lakhs towards principal amount and claimed only the balance principal amount of Rs.3 lakhs, together with interest. However, in the reply notice, the defendant contended that he borrowed only Rs.6 lakhs and from August 2018 upto November 2025, he has already paid Rs.10,57,250/-. It is also his contention that the promissory note and cheques were given only as security for the various loan transactions between April 2018 and March 2022.

8. In the leave to defend application also, the petitioner has contended that the entire money has been repaid and the plaintiff had evaded return of the original promissory note and cheque and has now misused the same to file a suit for recovery of money which is not due. The respondent filed a detailed counter to the said application, contending that the payments made by the petitioner were all prior to the date of execution of the promissory note and related to other financial transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant and insofar as the suit transactions is concerned, the plaintiff himself had fairly admitted that out of Rs.7 lakhs, Rs.4 lakhs has already been repaid towards principal and what remained due alone was sought to be recovered, in the summary suit.

9. The Trial Court, finding that the petitioner has admitted the signature in the promissory note, proceeded to dismiss the leave to defend petition, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to any leave to contest the suit and that no triable issues arise for consideration in the suit. I am unable to countenance the approach of the Trial Court in finding that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief at all, merely because he has admitted to the execution of the promissory note.

10. Admittedly, even according to the plaintiff, there were several financial transactions between the plaintiff and the revision petitioner. The plaintiff claims that the suit promissory note was executed in 2023, for a sum of Rs.7 lakhs. However, the petitioner contends that he has repaid Rs.4 lakhs, after the execution of the promissory note, which in fact, is fairly admitted by the respondent himself. However, the case of the petitioner is that he had signed blank cheque and promissory note for securing the borrowings from the respondent, which have been misused to create the suit transaction. In such case, I do not see a total lack of triable issues arising for consideration, as contended by the respondent.

11. The law with regard to entitlement of the defendant to grant of leave, unconditional or otherwise is now fairly well settled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as this Court have consistently held that when absolutely no defense is available or the defense that is raised is moonshine, then the defendant is not entitled to leave. However, if the defense raised is sterling in character, then unconditional leave to defend the suit has to be granted. In cases where the defense falls between two extremes, then the defendant is entitled to conditional leave. In fact, even in the decisions that have been relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent himself, this Court while accepting the contention of the plaintiff that even a blank negotiable instrument can be filled up by the holder, interfered with the unconditional leave granted by the Trial Court and directed the defendant to deposit 50% of the suit claim, as a condition for granting leave to defend the suit.

12. Though the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalamani Tex’s case and decisions of this Court in Meenakshisundaram’s case, K.Mani’s case and T.K.Kulandaivelu’s case, all these decisions arise under the Negotiable Instruments Act and not Order XXXVII of CPC. There is no quarrel with regard to the settled legal proposition that when execution of a promissory note is admitted, then it is not open to the executant to contend that it was a blank negotiable instrument viz., a promissory note or a cheque and that it has been filled up by the holder of the said instrument.

13. Though the petitioner admitted to the execution of the promissory note, this alone does not render his defense moonshine or baseless. It is his specific case that there has been financial transaction right from 2018 onwards and the cheque that has been filled up and forms the basis of the cause of action for filing of the suit, was a cheque and promissory note which were given only as security for the said borrowings. Even in the pre suit notice, the plaintiff has not spoken to about any transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant prior to 2023, on the contrary, in the reply to the pre suit notice, the defendant has set out details of various borrowings right from 2018 onwards and even in the plaint filed thereafter, the plaintiff does not deny the fact that there have been financial transactions, prior to 2023. In the light of the above, the petitioner has certainly raised triable issues that need to be considered at trial and the defense of the petitioner cannot be thrown out summarily.

14. In the light of the above and keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Hon’be Supreme Court and also followed by this Court in the cases referred herein above, the petitioner is entitled to conditional leave. In the light of the above, I am inclined to allow the revision petition and grant leave to the petitioner to defend the suit on merits.

15. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 09.07.2026 in I.A.No.1 of 2026 in O.S.No.7065 of 2025 on the file of the I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, is set aside, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the suit claim, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without seeking any further extension of time. In the event of the petitioner complying with this conditional order, the grant of leave shall take effect and the Trial Court shall try the suit as a regular suit, permitting the petitioner to file the written statement and thereafter, frame issues and try the suit and dispose of the same, within a period of eight weeks from the date of completion of pleadings. It is needless to state that in the event of the petitioner not complying with the condition, then the revision petitioner will not be entitled to leave to defend the suit. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.