RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The defendant seeks leave to defend the suit under Order 37 CPC instituted for recovery of Rs 32,91,100/- on the basis of two promissory notes for Rs 14,55,000/- and Rs 4,75,000/-, with interest at 24% per annum.

2. The plaintiff approached the court pleading that the defendant is the husband of the cousin of the father-in-law of Shri Manohar Lal Wadhwa, brother of the plaintiff.

3. It was further pleaded that the defendant approached the plaintiff through the said Shri Manohar Lal Wadhwa for a friendly loan to help the defendant in a financial crisis; the plaintiff, on the request of his brother, claims to have given a friendly loan of Rs

14,55,000/- in cash to the defendant on 5th November, 2003 and a further friendly loan of Rs 4,75,000/-, also in cash on 16th February, 2004; the defendant is stated to have further assured to repay the said loan as early as possible and to pay interest to the plaintiff at 24% per annum; the defendant is stated to have executed pronotes in favour of the plaintiff and to have “also executed a receipt of the amount in the presence of Shri M.L. Wadhwa on both the dates i.e., 5th November, 2003 and 16th February, 2004”.

4. The plaintiff, upon the default of the defendant to refund the monies or pay interest, claims to have got issued a notice dated 6th February, 2006 to the defendant. The defendant is stated to have issued a reply dated 2nd March, 2006 denying the loan and setting up a false defence. The plaintiff thus instituted the suit under Order 37.

5. The defendant has sought leave to defend on the ground that the suit is based on forged and fabricated documents and to pressurize the defendant into withdrawing the complaint stated to have been made by the defendant with the police authorities against Shri Manohar Lal Wadhwa, brother of the plaintiff, of the offences of misappropriation of monies alleged to have been committed by Shri Manohar Lal Wadhwa, while in the employment of the defendant. It is stated that the plaintiff had no means to give the loans stated to have been given in cash; it is further alleged that the plaintiff has not shown the loan to the income tax authorities. The defendant also pointed out in the application for leave to defend that the two promissory notes filed by the plaintiff before this court, each had two parts i.e., a receipt and the promissory note; that there were no signatures of the defendant on the receipt part and the signature on the promissory note part “are either forged or promissory note is made by lifting signed revenue stamps from any other documents/vouchers of the defendant’s firm by Shri Manohar Lal Wadhwa while in the employment of the defendant and thereafter affixing the same on the promissory note part”. It is further pleaded that the promissory notes are without consideration and the provisions of Section 269 SS of the Income Tax are also invoked to argue that there could be no loan of more than Rs 20,000/- in cash. The counsel for the defendant, during the hearing, also relied on Bharat Nidhi Limited v Shital Prasad Jain 2002 Dishonour of Cheque Reporter 197 (Delhi) and Love Kumar Sethi v Deluxe Stores 145 (2007) DLT 275 DB.

6. The counsel for the plaintiff, in rejoinder, has argued that the receipt portion of the pronotes being unsigned is immaterial inasmuch as the receipt of money in cash is admitted in the promissory note part also. The inconsistencies between the reply to the legal notice and the application for leave to defend vis-a-vis the allegation of the monies alleged to be embezzled by the brother of the plaintiff are also pointed out. The plaintiff has denied that his brother Shri Manohar Lal Wadhwa was, at any time, in the employment of the defendant. It is also argued that the defendant has not filed a single document to show the complaint, if any, or proceedings, if any, lodged by the defendant against Shri Manohar Lal Wadhwa, and as a counter blast whereto the present su