VITAYSH KOSER Vs. DEVINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the order dated 9 th March, 2005 passed by the Additional District Judge in a suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure whereby the appellant-defendant's application seeking leave to defend the suit was rejected. Consequent upon the rejection of the leave to defend application a decree for a sum of ` 8 lacs with interest @ 6% p.a.from the date of filing of the suit till realization came to be passed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and against the appellant-defendant.

(2.) The plaintiff had filed the suit on the allegations that the defendant had taken a friendly loan of ` 8 lacs from him for a period of two months on 17th May, 2003. Towards the repayment of the said loan the defendant had issued three cheques for a sum of ` 1,50,000/-, ` 5,00,000/- and ` 1,50,000/- and had also executed a pronote for ` 8 lacs. All the three cheques on presentation to the defendant's bank were dishonoured with the remarks "insufficient funds". The defendant having failed to pay the cheques amounts despite service of demand notice dated 11-08-03 the suit for recovery had to be filed.

(3.) The defendant filed an application seeking leave to defend the suit. In that application it was alleged that no loan was taken from the plaintiff and, in fact, the defendant did not even know him. He denied having issued any cheques or executed any pronote in favour of the plaintiff as claimed in the plaint. The defendant, however, admitted having signed three dishonoured cheques and the pronote referred to in the plaint. The defendant further claimed that he had some business transaction with one Mr. Suresh Kathuria for supply of T-shirts worth ` 8 lacs and he had given three undated cheques and three pronotes for the cheque amounts to that Kathuria as security only but he misused those cheques and pronotes in which names of the beneficiaries were not mentioned. That Kathuria had failed to return the cheques and the pronotes on cancellation of the deal despite his having been called upon to do so vide letters dated 15-07-03 and 09-08-03 by the defendant and the suit was based on stolen cheques and pronote.