( 1 ) THIS is a suit for the recovery of Rs. 3316/8/- against two defendants on the basis of a document described in the plaint as a Hundi dated 13-2-1952 for a sum of Rs. 3,300. 00.

( 2 ) IT is alleged in the plaint that the Hundi was drawn by Biswanath Nath, defendant 2, and accepted by defendant 1 Bidliu Bhusan De at the plaintiff's place of residence at Calcutta within, the jurisdiction of this Court. It is further alleged that the Hundi was duly presented to defendant 1 for payment on maturity but was dishonoured by nonpayment and notice thereof was duly given.

( 3 ) DEFENDANT 2 did not enter appearance in this suit. Defendant 1 put in his written statement on 1-9-1053. The suit having been filed under the provisions of Order 37, Civil P. C. an application was made for leave to defend. Such leave was given to defendant 1 but not to defendant 2 and the suit was decreed ex parte as against him. By his written statement defendant 1 denies that he accepted the Hundi as alleged in the plaint or at all. He further states that the instrument was not a Hundi and that he was never under any liability under the said Hundi nor was it ever presented for payment. It is