Prabir Kumar Majumdar, J. - (1.)This is an appeal from an order dated Dec. 8, 1993 passed by a learned Judge of this Court. The respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the appellants, the suit being on the basis of six several Bills of Exchange, which, according to the suit is against the appellant, being the drawer of the six several Bills of Exchange. The respondent-plaintiff took out Master's Summons on Sept. 4, 1993 for final judgment and decree for Rs. 29,08,328.73 against the appellant-defendant No. 1, J.J. Corporation, interest, interim interest and interest on judgment at the rate of 18% per annum on the sum of Rs. 29,08,328.73. According to the respondent-plaintiff, the appellant-defendant No. 2 is the sole-proprietor of appellant-defendant No. 1.
(2.)The respondent-plaintiff is the payee and holder in due course of six several Bills of Exchange/Hundis drawn by the defendants on one M/s. Spin- Mech. Industries, of 20 Old Court House Street, Calcutta. The said Bills of Exchange/Hundis were payable to and/or to the order of the respondent/plaintiff. It is the further case of the respondent-plaintiff that the said Bills of Exchange were duly presented to the said M/s. Spin-Mech. Industries for obtaining payments but the said documents were dishonoured by non-payment. Due notice of dishonour had been given to the appellant- defendants. According to the respondent-plaintiff, the appellant-defendants as drawer of the said Bills of Exchange are liable to compensate the respondent-plaintiff in respect of the said Bills of Exchange together with interest.
(3.)The appellant-defendant took out Master's Summons dated 20th Sept., 1993 for an order that delay, if any, in making the application for leave to defend in suit No. 498 of 1992 (the present suit) be condoned; leave be given to the defendants to defend the suit No. 498 of 1992 and to file the written statement within such time as this Court may deed fit and proper. The appellant-defendants case is that the said Drafts being the subject-matter of the suit were drawn under the Letters of Credit issued by the plaintiff bank in favour of the appellant-defendants being the beneficiary of the said Letters of Credits. Before the learned trial Judge the appellant-defendant submitted that the said documents had been executed by the appellant-defendant in the course of an arrangement between the respondent-plaintiff and M/s. Spin-Mech. Industries under which this Spin-Mech. Industries were granted overdraft facilities. The said overdraft facilities included a Letters of Credit in favour of the appellant-defendants. In the course of the transaction between the appellant-defendants and Spin-Mech. Industries, the appellant defendants supplied the goods to Spin-Mech. Industries and received payment under the Letter of Credit. It was submitted before the learned trial Court by the appellant-defendants that the said Letters of Credit were irrevocable and if the respondent-plaintiff was permitted to recover the amount from the appellant-defendants it would amount to revocation of the letter of credit.
;