( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC is directed against the order dated 5. 8. 2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi allowing an application for leave to defend the suit. ( 2 ) I have heard Mr. Ashok Bhalla, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of admission and have gone through the impugned order and copies of the documents attached with the petition. Briefly the facts as alleged in the plaint are that the petitioner. plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) filed suit for recovery of rs. 10,48,255/- on the basis of a written contract and the affidavits of respondents-defendants No. 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as defendants No. 1 to 3) and late Ved Prakash Kohli. The defendant No. 1 and 2 are stated to be the principal borrowers while defendant No. 3 and late Ved Prakash Kohli, parents of defendants No. 2,4 5 and 6 (hereinafter referred to as defendants No. 2,4,5 and 6)stood guarantees. Respondents No. 4 to 6 are stated to be legal heirs of late Ved parkash Kohli. ( 3 ) IT is alleged that the plaintiff had given a loan of Rs. 4,12,000/- to defendant No. 1 and Rs. 64,900/- to defendant No. 2 on various dates and the total comes to Rs. 4,76,900/ -. The defendants No. 1 and 2 could not re-pay the loans and approached the plaintiff for rescheduling of refund and thus an agreement dated 21. 1. 2003 supported with respective affidavits was executed. The defendants agreed to pay Rs. 4,76,900/- before 30. 6. 2004, failing which interest amounting to Rs. 3,48,000/- was to be paid and further interest @ Rs. 12,000 per month till full payment of the loan. It is alleged that the defendants issued two post dated cheques (1) bearing No. 007739 dated 22. 7. 2003 for Rs. 100/- and (2) bearing no. 007740 dated 30. 6. 2004 for Rs. 4,76,000/- in favour of the plaintiff. The cheque for Rs. 4,76,000/- on presentation was dishonoured twice. Thereafter a notice of demand was sent to the defendants but in vain. Proof of service of notice was obtained and the suit was filed under Order XXXVII CPC. ( 4 ) THE learned Additional District Judge noted that the defendants had appeared in pursuance of the notice for appearance and thereafter in pursuance of issuance of summons of judgment. Thereafter a notice of demand was sent to the defendants but in vain. Proof of service of notice was obtained and the suit was filed under Order XXXVII CPC. ( 4 ) THE learned Additional District Judge noted that the defendants had appeared in pursuance of the notice for appearance and thereafter in pursuance of issuance of summons of judgment. The defendants filed a joint application for leave to defend alleging that the suit under Order XXXVII CPC was not maintainable as the claimed amount was not a liquidated amount and the suit was hit by provisions of usurious loans Act. The plaintiff has not mentioned the date on which the loan was given or when the alleged agreement was entered into. Any such agreement was said to be forged and fabricated and that the same was not signed by defendants No. 1 and 2. ( 5 ) THE case of the defendants is that the cheques were given as security deposit for starting a lottery business relating to states of West Bengal and maharastra. The plaintiff had said that he exercised influence in the said states and could arrange dealership of lotteries. Further it was not mentioned that the loan was given in cash and that the agreement was not signed by any witnesses and several other grounds were raised for grant of leave to defend. In reply, inter alia, it was stated that the defendants have not denied the signatures of defendant No. 3 and late Ved Prakash Kohli. They have not raised any triable issue and that the plaintiff was claming only liquidated demand with interest under the agreement and the original cheques have been filed in a criminal complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable instruments Act. The defendants No. 4 to 6 are the legal heirs of Ved Praskash kohli. ( 6 ) THE learned Additional District Judge examined the contentions of both the parties and opined that the defendants had categorically denied the execution of the agreement and the affidavits or receipt of loan from the plaintiff and that the cheques were issued for some other purpose (supra) and not for repayment of loan and allowed the application for leave to defend. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the documents executed prior to the documents placed on the file of the trial court were available with the plaintiff and could be filed in the trial court and that the defence was sham. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the following judgments in support of his arguments :-1. Meditterranean Shipping Company S. A. and Anr. Vs. M/s Margra Industries Ltd. ,. reported in 2006 III AD Delhi 368. This was also a suit for recovery under Order xxxvii CPC. In this matter the defendant had not filed the address for service within the stipulated time and had pleaded that the service was not in conformity with order XXIX Rule 2 CPC. The defendant had alleged that the agreement for payment was signed under duress and pressure. The court opined that the defendant was trying to evade liability and dismissed the application for grant of leave. In the present case no such questions arise. The defendants have alleged that the agreement is forged and fabricated. Therefore, this judgment, in my view, is of no help to the petitioner. 2. Delhi Book Store Vs. K. S. Subramaniam, reported in 2006 I AD (Delhi) 557. In this matter under Order XXXVII CPC the defendant had alleged that the summons were received without documents but no such allegation was made at the time of putting in appearance. The court itself compared the signatures and found that the defence lacked bonafide, it was contradictory and sham, therefore the application for leave to defend was dismissed. 3. M/s Bush Boake Allen (India) Ltd. Vs. M/s Mehtajee and Company and Ors. , reported in 2006 I AD (Delhi) 396. There was prima facie a written contract between the parties. The interest part was not allowed because it was not a part of agreement and the court held that bonafide defence was not shown. 4. Greaves Limited Vs. Sh. Sandeep Dawar, reported in 2006 I AD (Delhi) 124. In this matter the goods were supplied by the plaintiff company and the defendant had issued 70 cheques which were dishonoured. The defendant had alleged that the suit was barred by limitation and the entire suit amount was not covered under order XXXVII CPC. The court therefore granted conditional leave to defend on furnishing security. 5. M. D. Overseas Ltd. Vs. The defendant had alleged that the suit was barred by limitation and the entire suit amount was not covered under order XXXVII CPC. The court therefore granted conditional leave to defend on furnishing security. 5. M. D. Overseas Ltd. Vs. Uma Shankar Kamal Narain, reported in 2006 (86) DRJ 769 . In this case there was running account between the parties. The defendant had taken contradictory defence which appeared to be improbable therefore leave to defend was not granted. 6. Food Corporation of India and Ors. Vs. M/s Ram Babu Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. , reported in 119 (2005) Delhi Law Times, 442. The single bench had not granted leave to defend. The defendant filed regular first appeal. In this matter there was an agreement to pay central sales tax which was to be charged @ 10% on total sales. The tax was charged @ 4% instead of 10% because defendant had to supply Form-C declaration, which it did not. On this account the balance 6% was claimed. A notice was sent in response to which the defendant made a part payment. It was found that the defendant did not show any justification to withhold the payment of the amount equivalent to 6% of the tax, therefor the appeal of defendant was dismissed. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel has submitted that the plaintiff is in possession of several earlier documents between the parties which will reinforce the contentions of the plaintiff. I may mention that one document refers to some "gold balance". However the said documents admittedly do not form part of the trial court record. ( 8 ) PERUSAL of the above referred judgments shows that the facts and circumstances in the said matters are distinguishable and these judgments are not attracted in the present case specially because there is a categorical denial of the alleged agreement. Why prima facie exorbitant interest has been levied" How the entire family could be involved" In my view prima facie it is a case of a doubt and suspicion as one cheque for Rs. 100/- only and another cheque for Rs. 4,76,800/- were issued. Why prima facie exorbitant interest has been levied" How the entire family could be involved" In my view prima facie it is a case of a doubt and suspicion as one cheque for Rs. 100/- only and another cheque for Rs. 4,76,800/- were issued. What was the purpose and necessity of taking loan is not clear" Was it a usurious loan, if at all there was a loan" considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and the law, I am of the view that there are triable issues in this suit. The order passed by the learned Additional District Judge is well reasoned and it does not suffer from any infirmity so as to invite interference under Section 115 of the Code of civil Procedure. The petition, in my opinion, is frivolous. It has wasted precious time of this court. It is, therefore, dismissed with Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as costs, which be deposited with the Delhi High Court mediation and Conciliation Centre, within one month.