RSA No. 1787 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1787 of 2005 Decided on : 25-02-2009 Kuldip Singh ....Appellant VERSUS Ved Parkash Gupta ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the appellant Mr. P.S.Rana, Advocate for the respondent MAHESH GROVER, J This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Trial Court dated 1.8.2003 and that of the First Appellate Court dated 13.12.2004. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,02,385/- intially which included Rs.95,000/- as principal amount and Rs. 1,07,385/- as interest. The appellant filed the written statement and pleaded that he had paid all the amounts which have been claimed by the plaintiff-respondent in his suit. After filing of the written statement the suit was amended and the amount sought to be recovered was revised by Rs.1,35,880/- which included Rs. 79,000/- as principal and Rs. 56,880/- as interest. Ultimately, the learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence before it decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 1,07,440/- which included Rs.79,000/- as principal and Rs. 28,440/- as interest. In appeal, the findings of the learned Trial Court were affirmed. RSA No. 1787 of 2005 2 In present Regular Second Appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised a limited contention to say that three bearer cheques had been issued in the name of the respondent out of which one cheque Ex.D2 was for a sum of Rs.30,000/- which was encashed by son of the respondent and atleast this amount the return of which stood established to the respondent, ought to have been excluded from the purview of the decree. In so far as other cheques are concerned, a perusal of the record reveals that the same do not remotely pertain to the plaintiff-respondent and the encashment thereof has not been traced to the respondent. There is no evidence to suggest that son of the plaintiff- respondent had some independent dealings with the appellant which can invite issuance of cheque in his favour. Then the only conclusion can be that sum of Rs.30,000/-, stood returned to plaintiff-respondent. No other point has been urged. The question of law that arises is as to whether the courts below had gone wrong in not construing the evidence D2 in its correct perspective which has resulted in a perverse finding? The answer is that since the cheque Ex. D2 and its encashment was traced to the son of the respondent who did not have any independent dealings with the appellant, the inference is that the amount was returned to the respondent and hence it should have been excluded from the decreetal amount. In this view of the matter, finding regarding Ex.D2 can at best be termed to be erroneous. Appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. February 25, 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge