AMAN GULATI Vs. PRAVEEN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.9.1994 passed by the Sub-Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 1077/1993 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for leave to defend and thereafter passing a decree for a sum of Rs. 94,400.00 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation.

(2.) The respondent instituted a suit under Order 37, Civil Procedure Code for recovery of Rs. 94,400.00 alongwith pendents lite and future interest. On being served with the summons of the suit the petitioner/defendant entered appearance and thereafter on being served with the summons for judgment filed an application for leave to defend alongwith an affidavit. In the said application it was alleged that the suit was liable to be dismissed as it did not conform to the mandatory provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was also contended that the pronote on the basis of which the suit was filed, did not bear the signatures of the defendant and that the respondent/plaintiff forged the signatures of the defendant on some papers, after obtaining the signatures of the defendant on some blank papers. The aforesaid application was taken up for consideration and after hearing arguments of the Counsel appearing for the parties the Trial Court found that the defence sought to be put up by the defendant is illusory and that the same did not raise any triable issue. The said application was, accordingly, dismissed and the Trial Court thereafter passed a decree under Order 37, Civil Procedure Code for a sum of Rs. 94,400.00 alongwith interest.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the suit was not instituted in strict conformity with the provisions of Order 37, CPC. It was also submitted that the plaintiff obtained signatures of the defendant on some blank papers and on the basis thereof the aforesaid recovery suit was instituted. He also submitted that for a periodical loan no suit under Order 37, Civil Procedure Code could be instituted. He also contended that the pronote on the basis of which the suit was instituted was also not stamped in accordance with the provisions laid down under the Indian Stamp Act.