' The plaintiff has filed this suit under Order XXXVII, C. P. C. For recovery of Rs, 4 Lacs. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant No, 1 had taken a loan of Rs, 4 lacs from the plaintiff and in consideration thereof he had issued in his favour a post-dated cheque dated 31st January, 1979 drawn on Habib Bank, Plaza Quarter, Karachi. Defendant No, 2 at the relevant time was Manager of the aforestated branch and he made endorsement on the cheque "good for payment" and affixed the bank's seal as well. Before the date of maturity of the said cheque the defendant approached the plaintiff and informed that the defendant No, 1 has not been able to arrange the payment of the amount of the cheque and requested not to present the same for encashment and in lieu thereof issued another postdated cheque dated 28th February, 1980 drawn on Garden Branch, Nishtar Road, Karachi.
Defendant No, 2 at that time was posted as manager of the branch, again endorsed the cheque as "good for payment". Again on date of maturity the defendant No, I expressed his inability to arrange the funds and the cheque was postdated to 15th July, 1980. This request was made by defendant No, 1 in writing and a copy was sent to defendant No,
2. Defendant No, 1 accordingly put the date of 15th July, 1980 on the cheque by scoring off 28th February, 1980. This cheque was presented on 30th January, 1981 and was dishonoured. Defendant No, 1 had filed application under Order XXXVII, rule 3 which was granted on 5th September, 1982 subject to furnishing security.
' Defendant No, 2 has filed this application for grant of leave to appear and defend the suit.
Defendant No, 2 has stated that the plaintiff and defendant No, 1 were good friends and customers of Habib Bank and were known to him. He has pleaded that the plaintiff and defendant No, 1 represented that both of them had business transactions worth Rs, 4 lacs and certain articles of this amount have been given to defendant No, 1 by the plaintiff. They further requested that they needed a sort of certificate from him to show it to the other party that the amount of Rs, 4 lacs was involved in the above transaction. They asked defendant No, 2 to certify payment of cheque of defendant No, 1 without in any way encumbering defendant No, 2 or the bank i. e. Defendant No, 3.
On the basis of this representation he admits to have made the endorsement on the cheque as 'good for payment'. He has explained that it was certified that if the cheque was presented it would be cashed provided the funds are available with defendant No,
3. In respect of second cheque dated 28th February, 1980 it has been pleaded that the plaintiff and defendant No, 1 brought this cheque to him and made the same representation and obtained an endorsement "good for payment." He has stated that the endorsement was made on the cheques on the above representations of plaintiff and defendant No, 1 and, therefore it was without consideration. It has been pleaded that the cheque was presented on 13th January,. 1981 and the date has been altered by the plaintiff and defendant No, 1 without his knowledge and consent which has changed the entire situation.
2. The position that emerges from the allegations made by both the parties is that both the cheques were endorsed by defendant No, 2 as 'good for payment'. The first cheque dated 31st January, 1979 was endorsed and seal of the bank was also affixed. In the second cheque no such seal was affixed by defendant No,
2. The question which will arise is whether in the facts and circumstances by endorsing good for payment on the second cheque dated 28th February, 1980 the defendant No, 2 has taken upon himself the responsibility to make payment or has he guaranteed the payment. Even if for argument's sake it is accepted that the endorsement amounted to a guarantee for payment the question will arise whether in view of material alteration by changing the date from 28th February, 1980 to 15th July, 1980 which according to defendant No, 2 was without his knowledge, the defendant; No, 2 is bound to make the payment. These questions require consideration, and will also determine the liability of defendant No, 2.
3. Defendant No, 2 has been able to make out plausible and arguable case. The defence disclosed in the affidavit raises an issue and discloses a triable issue. He has also been able to make out a prima facie case to defend the suit. In these circumstances I will grant unconditional leave to the defendant No, 2 to appear and defend the suit. He should file written statement within 3 weeks.