NARENDER KUMAR NISCHAL Vs. MANOJ SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC is directed against the order dated 5.8.2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi allowing an application for leave to defend the suit.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Ashok Bhalla, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of admission and have gone through the impugned order and copies of the documents attached with the petition. Briefly the facts as alleged in the plaint are that the petitioner. plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) filed suit for recovery of Rs.10,48,255/- on the basis of a written contract and the affidavits of respondents-defendants No.1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as defendants No. 1 to 3) and late Ved Prakash Kohli. The defendant No.1 and 2 are stated to be the principal borrowers while defendant No.3 and late Ved Prakash Kohli, parents of defendants No.2,4 5 and 6 (hereinafter referred to as defendants No.2,4,5 and 6) stood guarantees. Respondents No.4 to 6 are stated to be legal heirs of late Ved Parkash Kohli.

(3.) It is alleged that the plaintiff had given a loan of Rs.4,12,000/- to defendant No.1 and Rs.64,900/- to defendant No.2 on various dates and the total comes to Rs.4,76,900/-. The defendants No.1 and 2 could not re-pay the loans and approached the plaintiff for rescheduling of refund and thus an agreement dated 21.1.2003 supported with respective affidavits was executed. The defendants agreed to pay Rs.4,76,900/- before 30.6.2004, failing which interest amounting to Rs.3,48,000/- was to be paid and further interest @ Rs.12,000 per month till full payment of the loan. It is alleged that the defendants issued two post dated cheques (1) bearing No.007739 dated 22.7.2003 for Rs.100/- and (2) bearing No. 007740 dated 30.6.2004 for Rs.4,76,000/- in favour of the plaintiff. The cheque for Rs.4,76,000/- on presentation was dishonoured twice. Thereafter a notice of demand was sent to the defendants but in vain. Proof of service of notice was obtained and the suit was filed under Order XXXVII CPC.