( 1 ) THROUGH this application leave to defend the suit for recovery filed under the summary procedure of order 37 Code of Civil Procedure has been sought on multifarious grounds.

( 2 ) AT the outset, Mr. I. C. Kumar, learned counsel for the defendants has challenged the authority of Mr. Ravi k. Maggon who has filed the present suit as the power of attorney does not state that it was executed before a notary Public nor does it bear any authentication by a notary Public. It is pertinent to mention here that along with the suit a power of attorney was filed which was not notarised and a fresh power of attorney was filed on 29. 7. 2000 along with application for issuing summons for judgment.

( 3 ) SECTION 85 of Indian Evidence Act postulates that the court shall presume that every document purporting to be power of attorney and to have been executed before, and authenticated by, a Notary Public or any court, Judge, Magistrate, (Indian) Consul or Vice consul or representative of the Central Government, was so executed and authenticated.

( 4 ) IN D. H. M. Framji and others Vs. The Eastern Union bank Ltd. Chittagong A. I. R- (38) 1951 Punjab 371, an objection was taken that t