Cyriac Joseph, J.

1. The petitioner challenges the judgment dated 7th December, 1997 passed by the Court of Commercial Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 121/1997. The said suit was filed by respondent No. 1 M/s. S.N. Chit Fund Pvt. Limited against the defendants under Order XXXVII, CPC for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 52,934 along with costs and interest. The petitioner herein was defendant No. 3 in the suit. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were defendants 1 and 2 respectively.

2. According to the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 2 herein) became subscriber to Chit Series SNCF/24 of the value of Rs. 50,000 agreeing to pay 20 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 2,500 and he became the prize winner of Rs. 32,500 in the auction and received the said amount by cheque dated 20th December, 1993. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 stood surety for the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 stopped payment of balance instalments w.e.f. April, 1994 and a sum of Rs. 37,500stood outstanding towards balance instalments and a sum of Rs. 3,375 accrued towards interest from 1st April, 1994 to 31st December, 1994. Further amounts also accrued towards interest for the subsequent periods. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit under order XXXVII, CPC against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 52,934 along with costs and interest. Summonses for appearance were received upon defendant No. 1 by affixation and beat of drum. However, he did not put in appearance within time and his belated application for putting in appearance was dismissed by the Trial Court. Summonses for appearance were duly served on defendants 2 and 3 and they put in appearance in time. On service of summons for judgment defendants 2 and 3 filed separate applications for leave to defend the suit. The said applications of both the defendants were dismissed by the Trial Court holding that no triable issue was raised by the defendants. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for a sum of Rs. 51,624 along with costs and interest @1.2% per annum pendente lite as well as future till realisation. All the defendants were held to be liable for the decretal amount severally as well as jointly. The order dated 17th December, 1997 of the Trial Court dismissing the application for leave to defend the suit and decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff is under challenge in this revision petition.

3. The application for leave to defend the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that no triable issue was raised by the defendant. The suit was based on the agreement of guarantee dated 20th December, 1993 which was signed by the petitioner as a guarantor. A photocopy of the agreement of guarantee has been produced along with this revision petition. In the said agreement of guarantee name and address of the petitioner are written and he is described as a guarantor. The chit number also is mentioned in the agreement. The petitioner and the other guarantors and the witnesses have signed the agreement. The agreement is on a printed form used by respondent No. 1. In the application for leave to defend the suit the petitioner stated that he never stood surety or bound himself to pay any amount and that the documents were forged by the plaintiff. However, he did not dispute his signature on the agreement of guarantee based on which the suit was filed. According to the petitioner his signatures were taken on the blank papers, forms etc. at the time of becoming member of the chit operated by the plaintiff. Admittedly the petitioner is a clerk-cum-cashier in the Indian Overseas Bank. It cannot be believed that he would sign a blank printed form of agreement of guarantee without caring for the contents and their implications. The Trial Court has also pointed out that the legal notice sent by the plaintiff to the petitioner was duly received by him.

4.Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of this case I am of the view that the Trial Court was justified in holding that the application for leave to defend the suit did not raise any triable issue and that the allegation of the defendant regarding forgery of the documents was false. There is no illegality or material irregularity vitiating the impugned order. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of powers under Section 115 of the CPC.

Hence the revision petition is dismissed.