Manmohan Singh, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants (defendants No. 1 and 2 in the suit) against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 21st April, 2003 whereby the application of appellants for leave to defend was dismissed and the suit was decreed in favour of the respondent (plaintiff in the suit).

.2. The Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 87,99,121/- along with interest

.under Order 37 of Code of Civil Procedure against the defendants (appellants herein) and M/s Hilton Rubbers Ltd. i.e Defendant No. 3.

.3. It was submitted that M/s Hilton Rubbers Ltd. i.e. Defendant No. 3 had placed orders with the Plaintiff for supply of Nylon and Polyester based fabrics vide different Purchase Orders, details of which are mentioned hereinbelow:

.(i) Purchase Order No. 165 dated 01.02.99

.(ii) Purchase Order No. 168 dated 13.02.99

.(iii) Purchase Order No. 169 dated 01.03.99

.(iv) Purchase Order No. 170 dated 01.03.99

.(v) Purchase Order No. 173 dated 22.03.99

.(vi) Purchase Order No. 172 dated 04.03.99

.(vii) Purchase Order No. 174 dated 11.03.99

4. M/s Hilton Rubbers Ltd. had arranged to open irrevocable Letters of Credit through Plaintiff in his favour being the beneficiary for the said irrevocable Letters of Credit.

.5. The State Bank of India, Industrial Finance Branch, Madurai acted as advising/negotiating bank for the payment of material supplied against the aforesaid Purchase Orders. The details of said irrevocable Letters of Credit opened by the defendants in favour of Plaintiff are as follows:

.(i) LC No. NDCBB/6041/ILC/16/10

dated 10.05.1999 for Rs. 53,54,000.00

.(ii) LC No. NDCBB/6041/ILC/15/143

dated 23.03.1999 for Rs. 11,51,000.00

.(iii) LC No. NDCBB/6041/ILC/16/28

dated 23.06.1999 for Rs. 19,50,000.00

.(iv) LC No. NDCBB/6041/ILC/15/136

Dated 10.03.1999 for Rs. 10,00,000.00

.(v) LC No. NDCBB/6041/ILC/15/144

dated 24.03.1999 for Rs. 10,46,000.00

.6. It is averred in the plaint that despite repeated requests made by the Plaintiff, the defendant did not make payment under the respective irrevocable letters of credit. The plaintiff has also submitted that the letters of discrepancies alleged to have been issued by the defendants were never sent or issued by the Defendants to the advising/negotiating Bank and the same were fabricated by the Defendants after the Plaintiff and advising/negotiating Bank repeatedly pressed for payment of bills sent under the aforesaid Letters of Credit. Thus, the suit was filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for non-payment of the amounts under Letters of

.Credit.

.7. The plaintiffs in the plaint has specifically pleaded the alleged letters of discrepancies to him and SBI, Industrial Finance Branch, Madurai (Negotiating Bank) with regard to the Letters of credit and alleged them to be fabricated/manufactured/afterthought documents. Para 7, 8 and 10 in this regard reads as under:

7. The plaintiff submits that despite repeated requests made, the defendant No. 1 did not make payment under the respective irrevocable LCs. On approaching the defendant No. 1 for payment the plaintiff was conveyed in a very casual manner that there were certain discrepancies in the LCs and that the defendants had written some alleged letters to SBI Industrial Finance Branch, Madurai. The copies of the alleged letters of discrepancies alleged to have been issued by defendant No. 1 mentioning the alleged discrepancies and handed over to the representatives of the plaintiff by the defendant No. 1 when the plaintiffs representatives called uon the defendant at its office are annexed as Annexure D-1 to D-4 in the list of documents attached with the plaint.

8. The plaintiff submits that the alleged letters of discrepanicies said to have been issued by defendant No. 1 to advising/negotiating Bank mentioning the discrepancies were nothing but an afterthought, anti-dated and, completely fabricated