10.It is also the case of the defendants that, the 2nd defendant does not know the plaintiff and he further claimed that, at the relevant point of time, the 2nd defendant, in his account, was having a sum of Rs.1 Crore and therefore, he was not in need of financial assistance. Therefore, the question of demanding any loan from any one much less the plaintiff did not arise, and therefore, the very claim made by the plaintiff that he advanced the said loan as per the request of the 2nd defendant as introduced or recommended by the Bank Manager concerned is a lie and therefore, based on such transaction, the plaintiff does not entitled to get back Rs.5,00,000/- and therefore, the very cheque leafs claimed to have been given by the 2nd defendant was a cheque leafs with forged signature of the 2nd defendant and therefore, in order to prove his case, the defendants wanted leave to defend the case and therefore, the said application was filed, which was, without considering in proper perspective by the Court below, dismissed and therefore, the same is required to be interfered with in this revision.
