( 1 ) THIS Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 22-10-1984 of the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi refusing leave to defend and passing a decree for Rs. 12,567. 65 with costs and future interest @ Rs. 1. 20 percent per mensem against the petitioner-defendant.

( 2 ). Briefly these are the facts.

( 3 ). The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit under Order 37 of the Cods of Civil Procedure. He has alleged that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs. 10. 000. 00 repayable with interest @ 1. 20 per mensem; that the defendant issued two cheques (1) for Rs. 7,500. 00 dated 19-1-1983 and (2) for Rs. 3,100. 00 dated 1-2-1983 towards repayment of the loan in favour of the plaintiff; that the cheques presented to the bankers were returned with the remarks "refer to the drawer". The plaintiff sent notice dated 25-2-1984 demanding the amount but getting no response he filed this suit. The defendant entered appearance. Application for summons for judgment was filed and the petitioner defendant filed an application for leave to defend. The petitioner has pleaded that the application for summons for judgment was not signed by a duly authorised person; that the special power of attorney by the plaintiff in favour of his wife was not valid; that there was no cause of action available to the plaintiff; that the suit was liable to be dismissed on account of misjoinder of cause of action; that the plaintiff never advanced loan. The defendant has further alleged that the plaintiff had offered to provide a property at Bareilly for which the defendant had advanced Rs. 10. 000. 00 and Rs. 600. 00 for miscellaneous expenses for execution of relevant documents but later on the defendant on account of personal circumstances expressed his inability to purchase the same. The plaintiff in reply denied all these allegations. The case of the plaintiff as already stated is that a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 was paid and in consideration thereof the defendant had issued the laid cheques. The trial Court dismissed the application for leave to defend and passed a decree against the defendant.

( 4 ). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the two cheques were without consideration; that the application for summons for judgment does not disclose any cause of action; that the receipt dated 31-8-1982 does not relate to the alleged loan by the plaintiff to the defendant; that the special power of attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of his wife is invalid.

( 5 ). Prima-facie under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a cheque issued is for consideration. It is admitted by the petitioner-defendant that on 31-8-1982 he had received a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 from the plaintiff. His allegation, however, is that this amount was received towards advance for the purchase of a house in New Friends Colony. Thus it must be held that there is no ground even prima-facie to say that the cheques were without consideration. The issue of the two cheques by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff is not denied. The cheques were towards repayment of Rs. 10,000. 00 and interest thereon at Rs. 1. 20% per mensern.

( 6 ). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for summons for judgment is signed by the wife of the plaintiff who was appointed as an attorney under a Special Power of Attorney dated 16-5-1984. He submits that under Order 37 Rule 3 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure the plaintiff is required to obtain summons for judgment supported by an affidavit. The plaintiff filed the application dated 20-7-1984 with affidavit wherein it is stated that the cause of action arose out of the two cheques in question; that the amount claimed was Rs. 12,567. 65, that there was no defence available to the defendant. The application gives sufficient material requiring the defendant to file an application for leave to defend. The purpose of an application for summons for judgment is t