( 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