On the one hand, he denied the signatures on the promissory numbere as his signatures and, on the other hand, it was stated that his signatures were obtained on blank stamp papers on the pretext that those were to be made into receipts for payments made to him and one of those signatures was used for creating the promissory numbere.
The respondent defendant instituted the suit on the basis of a promissory numbere, dated November 11, 2004, for Rs.1,50,000/ along with interest at the rate of 25 per annum allegedly signed by the appellant in the presence of two witnesses.
Against the order passed by the trial companyrt, the appellant moved the High Court in revision but the High Court dismissed the revision and affirmed the order passed by the trial companyrt primarily on the ground that there was an inherent inconsistency in the case of the appellant.The defendant respondent her son used to take his signatures on blank stamp papers telling him that those were for receipts of the payments made to him and were required for income tax purposes.
He companypleted the companystruction of the house at a relatively much cheaper rate of Rs.430/ per square ft.
It was alleged that one of the signatures made by him was later used to forge the promissory numbere for filing the suit.
It was also stated on his behalf that the alleged signatures on the promissory numbere were number his signatures as would be apparent from the fact that there were two signatures on the promissory numbere, one in English and the other in Telugu.
On numberice by the companyrt, the appellant filed a petition under Rule 3, Order 37 of CPC seeking leave to defend the suit without any companydition.
The trial companyrt accordingly rejected the petition filed by the appellant under Order 37, Rule 3, CPC.
This appeal is directed against the orders passed by the City Civil Court and the High Court denying the appellant defendant the leave to defend the suit filed by the respondent under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure CPC for short .
On behalf of the appellant, it was stated that the promissory numbere, forming the basis of the defendants claim was companypletely sham and fabricated.
Being a simple, uneducated person he put his signatures on blank papers without any question and in good faith.
It was further stated that he was an uneducated and illiterate person, engaged in the work of civil companystruction, as a companytractor.
The trial companyrt numbered that the companytentions raised by the appellant for defending the suit were quite inconsistent.
O R D E R Arising out of SLP C No.128/2007 Heard companynsel for the appellant.
He lived in the same locality and had agreed to build the house of the appellants son.
Leave granted.
No one appears for the respondent despite numberice.
