IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 RSA.No. 75 of 2009() -------------------- AS.80/2000 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA OS.1219/1998 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF -------------------- RAMESH P.V. AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. VASU, PALLATHERY HOUSE, NELLAI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK BY ADV. SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: --------------- T.R. DAVIS, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. T.P. RAPPAI, WORKERS, ALAGAPPA TEXTILES, THAYYALAKKAL, ALAGAPPANAGAR DESOM, AMBALLOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. ADV. SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN FOR R1 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. --------------------------- R.S.A.NO.75 OF 2009 --------------------------- DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2009 JUDGMENT Plaintiff in O.S.No.1219/1998 on the file of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Irinjalakuda is the appellant. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.80/2000 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Irinjalakuda. The suit was filed for a direction to the defendant to produce Cheque No.910107 issued in Account No.4475 of the Federal Bank, Nellayi Branch and to cancel the same by declaring that it is vitiated by forgery and fraud and therefore void ab initio. The trial court dismissed the suit, which was confirmed in appeal. Hence, the second appeal. 2. The case of the plaintiff/appellant is that the defendant had somehow obtained a Cheque No.910107 from the cheque book issued to the plaintiff, which was exhibited in an -2- R.S.A.No.75/2009 open place in his shop. It is further alleged that the plaintiff did not have any knowledge about the defendant till the date of issuance of a lawyer notice dated 22/7/1997 and he met the defendant only at Pudukad Police Station on 28th July, 1997, when the police called him to the police station for questioning in connection with the complaint filed by the plaintiff. It is his case that the passbook and cheque book were kept openly in his shop- room, where the general public had accessability, that he did not care to verify the cheque leaves and that he came to know about the missing of two cheque leaves (Nos. 910107 and 910108) and suddenly he reported the matter to the Federal Bank. On receipt of a lawyer notice dated 24/7/1997 he came to know that cheque leaves were forged and they were in the possession of the defendant. It is his further case that he had never issued any cheque to the defendant and that the defendant had taken the cheque leaves, misused and forged them and filed a criminal complaint against the plaintiff. According to him, the signature -3- R.S.A.No.75/2009 in the cheque leaf was not put by him and it was forged by the defendant. 3. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PWs.1 to 3, DW-1, Exts. A2 to A9, B1 to B6 and Exts.X1 to X3. The trial court elaborately considered the contentions of the respective parties and concluded that the suit has been filed without any bona fides, that there is no evidence to prove that the defendant himself had taken the cheque from the shop of the plaintiff and forged his signature and produced it before the Bank for getting payment, that there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff himself has issued any cheque to the defendant for transaction, that he wants to escape from the criminal liability, therefore sued for cancellation of the cheque and that the contentions raised in the suit is frivolous and without any bona fides. The trial court dismissed the suit. The Appellate Court also considered the questions and agreed with the findings of the trial court. The dismissal of the suit and confirmation by the Appellate Court for -4- R.S.A.No.75/2009 the reasons stated elaborately in the judgment requires no interference by this Court. The findings are purely based on facts and no different view is possible in the given circumstances. No question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. In the result, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed in limine. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that Section 138 proceedings is pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Irinjalakuda. The said criminal complaint shall be disposed of on merits untrammelled by any of the observations made in the civil case, which was based on the evidence adduced in the case. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.