N. Mohan vs R. Madhu
Bench:
Banumathi J
Issue:
The issue in this case is related to the appeal made in
Supreme Court, as High Court refused to accept the decree claimed by the
appellant.
Facts:
- The case is based on a loan given to the
appellant/defendant by the plaintiff/respondent.
- The respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.45,00,000 for his
business purposes from the appellant/defendant, who was a businessman
holding tea and real estate businesses.
- The loan was given on the basis, that the appellant
would pay with an interest of 18% per annum, the loan amount was to be
returned within 2 months which was promised by the appellant.
- The appellant issued 2 post dated cheques, splitting
the amounts into 2 parts, Rs.20,00,000 and Rs.25,00,000, but the cheques
were returned with endorsement stating that the “payments stopped by the
drawer” when given in bank.
- The respondent filed a case and was decreed ex-parte.
- The appellant further appealed stating that the
summon was sent to his old address which was in Trichy, but he shifted to
Chennai.
- Appellant used Section 5 of Limitation act in the
court to accept his delay of 276 days in filing petition under Order IX Rule
13.
- The Additional district judge also dismissed the suit
raised the appellant.
- Both High Court and Supreme Court dismissed the
contention of the appellant and dismissed his claim.
- After the dismissal of SLP by Supreme Court, the
appellant further filed first appeal being AS(MD) challenging the order
passed by Additional District Judge of Tiruchirappalli.
- The appellant stated the same reason in this suit
stating that the summon was sent to his old address and asking to accept his
delay of filing his first appeal in 546 days, which the High Court denied
and dismissed.
- As the judgment was not satisfactory, the appellant
filed the appeal in Supreme Court.
Appellant's Contention:
The appellant contends that proper reason has been stated from their
side for delay in filing the first appeal. The appellant has to be given his
right to contest the decree on merits. The appellant also submitted his proof of
change in address, showing that he had shifted to Chennai.
Respondent's Contention:
The respondent contents that the reason stated is not proper and the
suit shall be dismissed. The Limitation period has concluded beyond which the
appellant cannot file his appeal. The Respondent also mentioned the older suit
SLP, which was dismissed by Trial Court, High Court and as well as Supreme
Court. It was stated that the Appellant cannot keep on stressing the same
reason as it was rejected by the earlier trials and proceedings.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court decreed the appeal filed by the Appellant and
condoned his delay of 546 days in filing the First appeal.
"The impugned judgment passed by the Madurai Bench of
Madras High Court in CMP(MD) No.6566 of 2017 in AS(MD) SR No. 27805 of 2017 is
set aside and this appeal is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is
condoned. The appeal shall be taken on file and the High Court shall proceed
with the same in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.” said the Supreme Court of
India.
