The legal principle established is that a mere bare and bald plea of non-receipt of goods, leading to dishonored cheques, is not sufficient to obtain leave to defend in a recovery of debt case.

( 1 ) I find no merit in this civil revision. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent. I have perused the record. Vide order and judgment dated September 19, 1979, the learned Sub Judge had, while dismissing the application of the petitioner seeking leave to defend, passed the decree for recovery of Rs. 4,974. 75 paise with proportionate costs.

( 2 ) THE suit was brought by the plaintiff under Order XXXVII of The cpleading that the plaintiff, which is a registered partnership firm with Sh. Anand Prakash being its registered partner, had supplied cloth goods to the petitioner and three cheques in the sum of Rs. 4,454. 80 paise were issued as price of the goods but the cheques were dishonoured being presented to the bank.

( 3 ) THE petitioner came up with the pleas that the plaintiff firm is not registered were not at all supplied and these cheques were issued in advance and as the goods were not supplied, so the cheques. were got dishonoured.

( 4 ) AS far as the plea regarding the registration of the firm is concerned, that was on the face of it a bogus plea because the petitioner had not even cared to check the record of The Registrar of Firms in order to find out whether the firm was registered or not and Sh. Anand Prakash is one of its registered partners or not who had instituted the suit. On the other hand, the plaintiff/respondent had produced on record the copy of the Form A showing that the firm was duly registered under The Indian Partnership Act and the partner who had filed the suit is duly registered partner.

( 5 ) IT is true, as urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the learned Sub Judge was not right in comparing the signatures of the petitioner allegedly appearing at the back of the bills by virtue of which it is alleged that the goods were supplied to the petitioner. However, it is quite clear that once the cheques had been issued, they were presumed to be issued for consideration unless otherwise proved or shown by the petitioner. Mere taking a bare and bald plea in the leave to defend application that the goods were not supplied and thus, the cheques were got dishonoured would not have enabled the petitioner to obtain a leave to defend in this case.

( 6 ) AFTER all, the petitioner is a businessman dealing in cloth and there is not an indication in the leave to defend application that in the account books of the petitioner, the delivery or receipt of the aforesaid goods is not indicated. It is also significant to mention that there was clear averment in the plaint that a notice had been duly served on the petitioner. The petitioner had not cared even to reply to that notice. If the cheques had been given in advance in expectation of the goods being delivered later on and goods having not been delivered and cheques were got dishonoured, it was incumbent on the part of the petitioner to have sent some reply to such a notice.

( 7 ) IN view of the above, I hold that the facts mentioned in the affidavit of the petitioner seeking leave to defend had not disclosed any triable issues. Pleas taken with regard to the non-receipt of goods are sham and bogus. The petition is dismissed but with no order as to costs because no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents.