THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU SECOND APPEAL NOS.184 AND 185 OF 2009 DATED: 01-02- 2011. Between Zubair Ahmed … Appellant-Defendant And Y.Thirupal …Respondent-Plaintiff THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU SECOND APPEAL NOS.184 AND 185 OF 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two appeals are directed against the judgments and decrees, dated 26-11-2008, in A.S.Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 respectively, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gooty in confirming the judgments and decrees, dated 23-10-2006, in O.S.Nos.355 and 357 of 2003 respectively, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri, wherein the suits filed for recovery of Rs.90,000/- each, were decreed with costs and subsequent interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till the date of realization. 2. Appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suits. 3. The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows: On 18-09-2000 and on 25-09-2000 the defendant purchased goods i.e., polished slabs for an amount of Rs.90,000/- each and issued cheques for the said amounts drawn on Apna Sahakar Bank Limited, Mumbai. The defendant took delivery of the goods from the plaintiff. When the plaintiff presented the cheques for collection, they were returned with an endorsement ’exceeds arrangements’ which means the defendant is not having sufficient amount in his account. Thereafter, the plaintiff got issued legal notice, dated 06-01-2001. The defendant having received the legal notice, neither paid the amount nor gave any reply. Later plaintiff filed complaints against the defendant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tadipatri and the same were taken on file as C.C.Nos. 283 and 284 of 2001. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed petitions under Section 257 Cr.P.C. to withdraw the complaints as he wanted to pursue his remedy in civil Court and the Court granted permission. Hence, these suits. 4. The defendant filed written statements denying the averments of the plaint and stated that the defendant never came to Tadipatri on 18-09-2000 and 25-09-2000 to purchase the goods. The plaintiff is required to cause production of bill books with respect of sale transaction. The plaintiff’s agent visited Mumbai about 4 months prior to the alleged dates and promised the defendant that he would supply granites by showing samples. The defendant satisfied with the samples and issued post dated cheques to the agent of the plaintiff instructing that the cheques would be encashed on delivery of goods to the defendant. The plaintiff never supplied the goods as promised by the agent and hence, there is no consideration for the amount covered under the cheque and hence, the suits are liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff hastily filed criminal complaints against the defendant under Section 138 of the Act and when the plaintiff finding that his case would end in acquittal after cross-examination of plaintiff, he withdrew the complaints. Taking advantage of the blank cheques issued by the defendant, the suits were filed. There is no cause of action to file the suits. Hence, he prays to dismiss the suits. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled by the trial Court: Issues in O.S.355 of 2003 1. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff in his individual capacity is maintainable? 2. Whether the defendant purchased polished slabs and granites worth Rs.90,000/- from the plaintiff on 18-9-2000 at Tadipatri and issued cheque bearing No.953975 for Rs.90,000/-? 3. Whether the plaintiffs has not supplied the granites to the defendant? 4. Whether the cheque bearing No.953975 issued by defendant dated 18-09-2000 is not supported by consideration? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for? 6. To what relief? Issues in O.S.357 of 2003 1.Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff in his individual capacity is maintainable? 2.Whether the defendant purchased polished slabs and granites worth Rs.90,000/- from the plaintiff on 25-9-2000 at Tadipatri and issued cheque bearing No.953977 for Rs.90,000/-? 3.Whether the plaintiffs has not supplied the granites to the defendant? 4.Whether the cheque bearing No.953977 issued by defendant dated 25-09-2000 is not supported by consideration? 5.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for? 6.To what relief? 6. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. 7. The trial Court after consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that cheques have been admitted by the defendant and therefore, presumption under Section 118 of the Act can be drawn and accordingly, decreed the suits. On appeal, the said judgments and decrees were confirmed. Aggrieved thereby, these appeals have been filed by the defendant. 8. Now the point for determination is whether there is any substantial question of law involved in these two appeals? 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant contended that the purpose for which the cheques were issued has not established by cogent evidence, that the evidence adduced on that aspect is contrary to the pleadings, that the goods/marbles that were supplied is not evidenced by any documentary evidence, that both the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence in a right perspective and hence he prays to admit the appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below are vitiated by placing the burden on the defendant to establish the factual aspect by supplying goods (granite stones) contrary to the Section 3 of Evidence Act? 2. Whether the courts below are right in drawing the presumption under Section 118 of the N.I. Act against the defendant when the plaintiff failed to prove his case supplying granite stones to the defendant? 3. Whether the judgments of the courts below are vitiated by not taking into considering of different versions with regard to supply of stock (granite) in criminal complaint and plaint? 4. Whether the judgments of the courts below are vitiated in not appreciating the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective? 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff contended that the cheques have been admitted by the defendant and therefore, burden shifts to him to show that it was not supported by consideration, that upon appreciation of evidence on record on fact, both the Courts below held that the cheques were issued for discharge of debt and therefore, there is no substantial question of law involved so as to admit the appeal and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeals. 11. In view of amendment to Section 100 CPC, admission of Second Appeal is not routine or automatic. There must be substantial question of law. The word ‘substantial question of law’ is not defined under CPC. But it must mean it would affect the rights of the parties substantially. If both the Courts below gave perverse findings or the findings are not based upon admissible evidence or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration or mis conception of law are some of the circumstances where it can be said that it involved substantial question of law. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision reported in K.VENKATARTNAM V P.VENKAYAMMA [1], wherein it was held thus (para 5): “ARREARS: the primary cause of the accumulation of arrears of second appeal in the High court is the laxity with which second appeals are admitted without serious scrutiny of the provisions of Section 100 C. P. C. It is the bounden duty of the High Court to entertain second appeal within the ambit and scope of Section 100 C. P. C. The question which is often asked is why should a litigant have the right of two appeals even on questions of law" The answer to this query is that in every State there are number of District Courts and courts in the District cannot be final arbiters on questions of law. If the law is to be uniformly interpreted and applied, questions of law must be decided by the highest Court in the State whose decisions are binding on all subordinate courts. Rationale behind permitting second appeal on question of law: the rationale behind allowing a second appeal on a question of law is, that there ought to be some tribunal having a jurisdiction that will enable it to maintain, and, where necessary, re-establish, uniformity throughout the State on important legal issues, so that within the area of the State, the law, in so far as it is not enacted law, should be laid down, or capable of being laid down, by one court whose rulings will be binding on all courts, tribunals and authorities within the area over which it has jurisdiction. This is implicit in any legal system where the higher courts have authority to make binding decisions on question of law. Now, after 1976 Amendment, the scope of Section 100 has been drastically curtailed and narrowed down. The High Courts would have jurisdiction of interfering under Section 100 C. P. C. only in a case where substantial questions of law are involved and those questions have been clearly formulated in the memorandum of appeal. At the time of admission of the second appeal, it is the bounden duty and obligation of the High court to formulate substantial questions of law and then only the High Court is permitted to proceed with the case to decide those questions of law. The language used in the amended section specifically incorporates the words as "substantial question of law" which is indicative of the legislative intention. It must be clearly understood that the legislative intention was very clear that legislature never wanted second appeal to become "third trial on facts" or "one more dice in the gamble". The effect of the amendment mainly, according to the amended section, was: (i) The High Court would be justified in admitting the second appeal only when a substantial question of law is involved; (ii) The substantial question of law to precisely state such question; (iii) A duty has been cast on the High Court to formulate substantial question of law before hearing the appeal; (iv) Another part of the Section is that the appeal shall be heard only on that question. The fact that, in a series of cases, this court was compelled to interfere was because the true legislative intendment and scope of Section 100 C. P. C. have neither been appreciated nor applied. A class of judges while administering law honestly believe that, if they are satisfied that, in any second appeal brought before them evidence has been grossly misappreciated either by the lower appellate court or by both the courts below, it is their duty to interfere, because they seem to feel that a decree following upon a gross misappreciation of evidence involves injustice and it is the duty of the High Court to redress such injustice. We would like to reiterate that the justice has to be administered in accordance with law. When Section 100 C. P. C. is critically examined then, according to the legislative mandate, the interference by the High Court is permissible only in cases involving substantial questions of law. Some leading Cases decided after 1976 amendment in Bholaram v. Amirchand (1981) 2 SCC 414 a three-Judge Bench of this court reiterated the statement of law. The High Court, however, seems to have justified its interference in second appeal mainly on the ground that the judgments of the courts below were perverse and were given in utter disregard of the important materials on the record particularly misconstruction of the rent note. Even if we accept the main reason given by the High Court the utmost that could be said was that the findings of fact by the courts below were wrong or grossly inexcusable but that by itself would not entitle the high Court to interfere in the absence of a clear error of law. In Kshitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait [ (1997) 5 SCC 438], a three judge Bench of this court held: (a) that the High Court should be satisfied that the case involved a substantial question of law and not mere question of law; (b) reasons for permitting the plea to be raised should also be recorded; (c) it has the duty to formulate the substantial questions of law and to put the opposite party on notice and give fair and proper opportunity to meet the point. The court also held that it is the duty cast upon the High Court to formulate substantial question of law involved in the case even at the initial stage.” 12. The suits are based upon issuance of cheques for Rs.90,000/- each on 18-09-2000 and 25-09-2000 respectively in favour of the plaintiff drawn on Apna Sahakar Bank Limited, Mumbai. According to the plaintiff, the cheques were issued being the amounts for supply of polished slabs. In view of the fact that the suit filed are based upon negotiable instrument, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the cheques were issued for legally enforceable debt or liability. As per the pleadings, the cheques were issued as the defendant purchased goods namely polished slabs where as in the evidence of P.W.1, it is stated that defendant came to Tadipatri for purchase of polished slabs and for the said purpose, the defendant issued cheques. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that the defendant purchased granite slabs and to discharge the debt, he issued two cheques and the plaintiff received the cheques keeping trust and confident on defendant, that the defendant assured him that he had sufficient funds in his account and when the cheques were presented in the bank, they were returned with an endorsement ‘exceeds arrangement’. In the cross-examination also, he reiterated that he received the cheques from the defendant for handing over the slabs, that the defendant visited Tadipatri on 25-09-2000 to purchase granite slab material from him. Nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of P.W.1. Issuance of cheques had not been denied or disputed. No doubt, P.W.1 has stated in the cross-examination that he has not supplied the granite slabs to the defendant, but he supplied only granite scrap material to the defendant, but it would not affect the case of the plaintiff so as to disbelieve his evidence. Whether slabs or scrap, both relate to the granite. So from the evidence, of P.W.1, it is clear that for the purpose of supply of granite material by the plaintiff, cheques were issued. Even the defendant is not denying or disputing about the issuance of cheques. Though he contended that he issued blank cheques, once the burden on the plaintiff stands discharged that the cheques were issued for legally enforceable debt, the presumption under Section 118 of the Act can be drawn. If it is drawn, it can be presumed that the cheques were supported by consideration. Of course, that presumption of law under Section 118 of the Act is a rebuttable presumption, but the burden is on the defendant. The word ‘unless the contrary is proved’ would mean that the defendant has to adduce necessary evidence to show that negotiable instrument was not supported by consideration or he can as well elicit in the cross-examination of plaintiff witnesses to discharge the said burden. There is no evidence adduced by the defendant to show that cheques were not given by him for legally enforceable debt. According to the evidence of defendant, the cheques were given to the agent of the plaintiff when he visited Mumbai and the agent promised the defendant that he would supply the goods, but they have not supplied the goods. The defendant himself admitted in his cross-examination that the agent of the plaintiff informed that they would supply the goods within 15 days and they have sent goods and material as promised by them. The defendant is a resident of Mumbai. As per the evidence of defendant, it is clear that after receipt of goods or material from the plaintiff, he must have issued the cheques for the purpose of discharging the liability. When the defendant is admittedly doing business in marble and granites since 1996 at Bombay, there is possibility for him to approach the plaintiff for supply of granites. Unless the goods are supplied, it would not be possible for the defendant to issue cheques to a stranger who is residing at Tadipatri. Therefore, on his own admission, it is clear that certain goods have been supplied and the cheques in question were given for discharge of legally enforceable debt. 13. The contention of the defendant is that he issued blank cheques to the agent of the plaintiff, but that is not substantiated with any evidence. He does not know the name of the agent of the plaintiff. The agent of the plaintiff has given visiting card to the defendant when he visited Mumbai. That visiting card is not produced before this Court. In such a case, the defendant would not have given the cheques to a stranger without ascertaining the full address particulars of the agent of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plea taken by the defendant is absolutely a false plea and is not substantiated with any other evidence. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant placed reliance on the decision of the apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.2045 of 2008 between KUMAR EXPORTS V SHARMA CARPETS, wherein it was held thus: “The use of the phrase ‘until the contrary is proved’ in Section 118of the Act and use of the words ‘unless the contrary is proved’ in Section 139 of the Act read with definitions of ‘may presume’ and ‘shall presume’ as given in Section 4 of the Evidence Act, makes, it at once clear that presumptions to be raised under both the provisions are rebuttable, it only points out that the party on whom lies the duty of going forward with evidence, on the fact presumed and when that party has produced evidence fairly and reasonably tending to show that the real fact is not as presumed, the purpose of the presumption is over. The accused in a trial under Section 138 of the Act has two options. He can either show that consideration and debt did not exist or that under the particular circumstances of the case the non existence of consideration and debt is so probable that a prudent man ought to suppose that no consideration and debt existed. To rebut the statutory presumptions an accused is not expected to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt as is expected of the complainant in a criminal trial. The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration and that there was no debt or liability to be discharged by him. However, the Court need not insist in every case that the accused should disprove the non-existence of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. At the same time, it is clear that bare denial of the passing of the consideration and existence of debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of the accused. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the burden of proof shifted to the complainant. To disprove the presumptions, the accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the Court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist. Apart from adducing direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration or that he had not incurred any debt or liability, the accused may also rely upon circumstantial evidence and if the circumstance so relied upon are compelling, the burden may likewise shift again on to the complainant. The accused may also rely upon presumptions of fact, for instance, those mentioned in Section 114 of the Evidence Act to rebut the presumptions arising under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act. The accused has also an option to prove the non-existence of consideration and debt or liability either by letting in evidence or in some clear and exceptional cases, from the case set out by the complainant, that is, the averments in the complaint, the case set out n the statutory notice and evidence adduced by the complainant during the trial. Once such rebuttal evidence is adduced and accepted by the Court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the preponderance of probabilities, the evidential burden shifts back to the complainant, and, thereafter, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act will ot again come to the complainant’s rescue.” The above decision has no application to the present facts of the case in view of the fact that the proof required in a criminal case is entirely different from the proof required in a civil case and the judgment rendered by the apex Court is with reference to the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff relied on a decision reported in MALLAVARAPU KASIVISESWARA RAO V THADIKONDA RAMULU FIRM AND OTHERS [2], wherein it was held thus: “UNDER Section 118 (a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court is obliged to presume, until the contrary is proved, that the promissory note was made for consideration. It is also a settled position that the initial burden in this regard lies on the defendant to prove the non- existence of consideration by bringing on record such facts and circumstances which would lead the Court to believe the non-existence of the consideration either by direct evidence or by preponderance of probabilities showing that the existence of consideration was improbable, doubtful or illegal. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of this Court in the case of Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company Vs. Amin chand Payrelal [supra]. In paragraph 12 of the said decision, this court observed as under: - "upon consideration of various judgments as noted hereinabove, the position of law which emerges is that once execution of the promissory note is admitted, the presumption under Section 118 (a) would arise that it is supported by a consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable. The defendant can prove the non-existence of a consideration by raising a probable defence. If the defendant is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the plaintiff who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would disentitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument. The burden upon the defendant of proving the non-existence of the consideration can be either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. In such an event, the plaintiff is entitled under law to rely upon all the evidence led in the case including that of the plaintiff as well. In case, where the defendant fails to discharge the initial onus of proof by showing the non-existence of the consideration, the plaintiff would invariably be held entitled to the benefit of presumption arising under section 118 (a) in his favour. The court may not insist upon the defendant to disprove the existence of consideration by leading direct evidence as the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated and even if led, is to be seen with a doubt. The bare denial of the passing of the consideration apparently does not appear to be any