Madan B. Lokur ( 1 ) ON 16/11/2000, a direction was given to the parties to file their short synopsis within two weeks. Neither of the parties have filed any short synopsis. Today learned Counsel for the defendants says that she wants some more time to file a short synopsis. I do not think it appropriate to adjourn the matter for filing synopses since sufficient time has already been given. ( 2 ) ON 10/01/2001, learned Counsel for the defendants took some time to argue the application for leave to defend. Since this application has been pending for the last more than a year, the request was acceded to on payment of Rs. 2,000. 00 as costs. Today also learned Counsel for the defendants requests for some time to argue the matter. I do not think that such a request should be entertained. ( 3 ) THE application for leave to defend was filed in August, 1996. For some reason it was given a number only in 1999. ( 4 ) THE application for leave to defend filed by the defendants is not supported by an affidavit. It has been made very explicit in M/s. Gainda Mull Hem Raj v. M/s. Arora Brothers and Anr. , AIR 1973 Delhi 141, that an application for leave to defend is required to be supported by an affidavit which has to be filed either with the application or subsequently. ( 5 ) A reply to the application was filed by the plaintiff on 13/11/1996 wherein a preliminary objection was taken that the application is not supported by an affidavit. Notwithstanding the objection, the defendants have taken no steps to file an affidavit for almost five years. ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY, in the eyes of law there is no application for leave to defend. ( 7 ) SINCE there is no application for leave to defend filed by the defendants, there is no option but to accept the averments made in the plaint. On the basis of the averments made in the plaint which are to the effect that the defendants had issued cheques against its liability to the plaintiff and that the cheques bounced on more than two occasions, there is no option but to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. On the basis of the averments made in the plaint which are to the effect that the defendants had issued cheques against its liability to the plaintiff and that the cheques bounced on more than two occasions, there is no option but to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for a sum of Rs. 13,33,869. 00- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit that is 6/04/1996 until realisation. The plaintiff will also be entitled to costs. ( 9 ) DECREE sheet be drawn up accordingly. The suit and IAs stand disposed of. Suit and I. As. disposed of.