( 1 ) THIS petition is filed by the defendants in S. 309/93 under the provisions of Order XXXVII Rule 3 (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure. There was delay on the part of the petitioner to file this application and they had filed IA. 5112/93 under Order XXXVII Rule 3 (7) of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. That petition is allowed by me. I, therefore, proceed to consider this petition on merits.

( 2 ) SUIT No. 309/93 is filed by Rajesh Ahuja son of Shri A. L. Ahuja against two defendants, viz. Manoj Mittal son of Shri D. D. Mittal and defendant No. 2 M/s. Cosmos Builders and Promoters. Plaintiff Rajesh Ahuja is having business in real estate and he was formerly Managing Director of Cosmos Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. He had entered into a contract with Methodist Church in India on 26. 1. 1986 on behalf of Cosmos Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. for raising some houses. At that time wife of Rajesh Ahuja was the principal shareholder alongwith Rajesh Ahuja of the said Cosmos Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Plaintiff had also devoted himself totally towards the success of his Battery Lane Project and he had suffered certain losses in the business of the said Cosmos Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, in July 1990 he had taken one Ashok Verma and his wife Ms. Meenakshi Verma as directors in the said Cosmos Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and had sold a large number of his shares in their favout but he had kept with him 15 per cent of the shares.

( 3 ) DEFENDANT No. 1, Manoj Mittal, his father and other members of his family had acquired the remaining 85 per cent shares of the said Cosmos Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. in August 1991. They wanted plaintiff s 15 per cent shares and, therefore, negotiations were taking place. It is the claim of the plaintiff that ultimately in April 1992 it was agreed between the parties that the 15 per cent shares which he was holding should be sold to defendant No. 1 for a price of Rs. 19,00,000. 00. An agreement to that effect was executed between the parties and two cheques, viz. (1) bearing No. 825453 dated 10. 10. 1992 for Rs. 17,95,150. 00 and (2) Cheque No. 012277 dated 11. 4. 1992 for Rs. l,04,850. 00 were issued. But, as the defendant No. l could not arrange for the funds for realisation of Cheque No. 825453 dated 10. 10. 1992 for Rs. 17,95,150. 00 he requested the plaintiff to return that cheque to him in consideration of issuing two fresh cheques for the said amount. Accordingly, plaintiff returned the original cheque No. 825453 for Rs. 17,95,150. 00 to defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 1 gave two cheques, viz. (1) Cheque dated 24. 4. 1992 for Rs. 1,01,282. 35 and (2) Cheque dated 10. 10. 1992 for Rs. 16,93,867. 70p.

( 4 ) IT is the further case of the plaintiff that cheque dated 11. 4. 1992 for Rs. 1,04,850. 00 and cheque dated 24. 4. 1992 for Rs. 1,01,282. 35 were duly encashed and he received the sum of both the cheques. But when he presented cheque bearing No. 825456 for Rs. 16,93,867. 70p. the same was not encashed by the bank for insufficient funds and the same has been returned to him. Thereafter, he has Filed the present suit under the provisions of Order XXXVII to get a money decree for a total sum of Rs. 19,64,868. 00 by ciaiming, besides the amount of cheque of Rs. l6,93,867. 70p. , 24 per cent interest thereon.

( 5 ) BY the present application it is contended by the defendants that the plaintiff has not come before the Court with clean hands and the suit is not at all tenable under the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is contended by them that the very fact that the plaintiff is not producing the original cheque for the amount of Rs. 17,95,150. 00 shows that he has not come before the Court with clean hands. They contended that plaintiff had agreed to sell his 13,860 shares of denomination of RS. 1o. 00 for an amount of only Rs. 1,04,850. 00 and that amount is ac