judgment

1.Heard counsel for the appellant. No one appears for the respondent despite notice.

2.Leave granted.

3.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).

4.The respondent-defendant instituted the suit on the basis of a promissory note, 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.

5.On notice by the court, the appellant filed a petition under Rule 3, Order 37 of CPC seeking leave to defend the suit without any condition. On behalf of the appellant, it was stated that the promissory note, forming the basis of the defendants claim was completely sham and fabricated. It was further stated that he was an uneducated and illiterate person, engaged in the work of civil construction, as a contractor. He lived in the same locality and had agreed to build the house of the appellants son. He completed the construction of the house at a relatively much cheaper rate of Rs.430/- per square ft