1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.267 OF 2010 Shri Kaiyomarz s/o KekiMedhora ..vs.. Manubhai s/o Amrutlal Bagadai =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri V.V. Bhangde, advocate for the appellant. C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK,J. DATED : 9 th June, 2010. Heard Shri Bhangde, the learned counsel for the appellant. 2] The appellant is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.76,550/-. It was the case of the plaintiff that he had advanced a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant and at the time of advancement of the loan, the defendant had pledged share certificates of different companies as a security with the plaintiff. On 12.3.1993 loan amount became due but the defendant failed to pay the amount. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 12.3.1993, the defendant issued 2 cheques each of Rs.50,000/- to the accountant of the plaintiff Shri Jayant Thakkar. Out of these two cheques Shri Thakkar presented one cheque to 2 the defendant’s banker, but the said cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement “exceeds arrangement”. The fact of dishonour of the cheque was brought to the notice of the defendant. Defendant then paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards dishonoured cheque. Since the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- was outstanding against the defendant the plaintiff filed the suit. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that two cheques were issued by the defendant on 12.3.1993 and one of them in respect of an amount of Rs.50,000/- was issued in the name of one Natwarlal as desired by the plaintiff. The said cheque was cleared by the banker. So far as the other cheque was concerned, it was in the name of “self” was dishonoured and therefore, the defendant paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff after the cheque bounced. The defendant sought for the dismissal of the suit. 3] Both the courts on appreciation of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the defendant failed to prove that the cheque bearing no.191638 in the name of Natwarlal Ashar had any concern with the plaintiff. The courts held that it was difficult to believe the story of the defendant that he issued cheque no.191632 in the name of Natwarlal on the say of the plaintiff and the amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid to Natwarlal on the directions of 3 the plaintiff and consequently the plaintiff had received the said amount of Rs.50,000/-. The courts held that the defendant had failed to prove that Natwarlal had any relationship with the plaintiff. The courts also observed that it was expected of the defendant to get an acknowledgment from the plaintiff or his accountant Jayant Thakkar in respect of the receipt of the said cheque in the name of Natwarlal for the payment of loan amount. 4] The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of facts and are based on a proper appreciation of the material on record. Since the findings do not give rise to any substantial question of law, the second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP