( 1 ) THE suit is filed for the recovery of Rs. 67,68,858. 00 with subsequent interest.

( 2 ) IN the plaint, apart from staling that plaint is filed under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code, a decree for mortgage is also prayed for. The plaint was presented on 29. 3. 93. On 30. 3. 93 when the matter came up before Court, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that he was giving up the relief for mortgage decree and the suit may be treated as a suit under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code that was accepted and ordered by Bansal, J. Therefore, the suit is under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code and summons was directed to be issued as per the provisions of Order 37 CPC.

( 3 ) THERE are three defendants in the suit. First defendant filed IA. 7843/94 for leave to defend. Second defendant filed IA. 7533/94 for leave to defend. He also filed IA. 7605/94 for condonation of delay for 55 dys in filing IA. 7533/94. Defendant No. 2 has filed O. A. 7/94 questioning the order dated 3. 8. 94 by the Joint Registrar holding that the summons for judgment had been served on the second defendant on 27. 6. 94. Second defendant has also filed IA. 7747/94 for condoning delay in filing the appeal. Third defendant has filed IA. 4760/94 for leave to defend.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the parties argued the matter very elaborately. Before dealing with the defence of defendants 1 to 3, I shall briefly state the case of the plain- tiff as found in the plaint.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff and the first defendant had some acquitance since the time when the first defendant acted as the property broker for the plaintiff for purchasing the house bearing No. 14, Anand Lok, New Delhi from Dr. Naresh.

( 6 ) IN the first week of May 1989, first defendant approached the plaintiff request- ing for accommodation by lending a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs to meet some of his financial obligations in his property business. The first defendant promised to pay interest @ 36% per annum, compoundable on every three months and the first defendant wanted the money to be paid in cheque in the name of first defendant and the third defendant (Ramesh Chander Suri ). A cheque for Rs. 7 lakhs dated 4. 5. 89 was issued in the name of the third defendant and the cheque for Rs. 3 lakhs dated 24. 5. 89 was issued in the name of the fust defendant. It was agreed that the interest would be paid @ 36% per annum with quarterly rest. The fact that the cheques had been encashed by defendants I and 3 and they had used the money, is not disputed. The third defendant had received the money through first defendant is also not in dispute.

( 7 ) IN or about the 5th January 1990 first defendant again approached the plaintiff for further loan stating that if plaintiff helped him by giving Rs. 10-lakhs he would be able to finish a profitable deal and the entire money that may fall due to the plaintiff could be paid by him within a short time. The plaintiff again lent money. This time also Rs. 10 lakhs. A cheque dated 5. 1. 1990 for Rs. 6 lakhs was issued in the name of the first defendant and a cheque dated 5. 1. 90 in the name of defendant No. 2 (Mr. Roshan Lal) for Rs. 4 lakhs. This amount was also repayable with interest @ 36% per annum with quarterly rest. First defendant represented that the second defendant was his Company) he was one of the directors of the Co. and that he was competent to represent it and he was authorised to operate on behalf of the Company.

( 8 ) ON 27th of January 1990 the first defendant came forward with a further request for loan of Rs. 4 lakhs and the cheque was to be issued in the name of 2nd defendant (Rockfield Developers Pvt. Ltd. ). A cheque for Rs. 4 lakhs was issued in the name of Rockfield Developers Pvt. Ltd. on 27th of January 1990 and this amount was also repayable with interest @ 36% per annum with quarterly rest. Therefore, in all Rs. 24 lakhs had been taken as loan by defendants 1 to 3 through first defendant. The details are :-

1. 4. 5. 89 Rs. 7 lakhs cheque