3 It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Petitioner/Defendant approached it for a hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- and assured that the said amount would be returned within a period of 6 to 8 months. The Plaintiff accordingly advanced the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and to secure repayment, the Petitioner/Defendant executed a receipt in acknowledgment of having received the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/- which receipt is dated 17.06.2008 and it is the case of the Plaintiff that on the same day, the Defendant gave a cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- which was dated 31.03.2009. The said cheque was dishonoured when it was presented in the Bank. The Plaintiff accordingly issued a notice to the Defendant. The Defendant denied that any transaction had taken place between him and the Plaintiff. It seems that the Plaintiff filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and thereafter filed the instant Suit for the recovery of the amount which has been mentioned hereinabove. On the summons for judgment being served upon the Defendant, he filed his reply seeking leave to defend and though in the reply to the notice it was contended that the cheques given to one Ashok Kataria were lost and have been misused by the Plaintiff, in the application for leave to defend, no such theory was propounded except stating that there was a business transaction between the Plaintiff and Ashok Kataria.
