THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2449 OF 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 25 of the Small Causes Courts Act, is directed against the decree and judgment, dated 11.03.2008, in S.C.S.No.11 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, whereunder and whereby, the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of amount covered under two cheques, which were dishonoured, together with penal charges, legal notices, charges and also cheque return charges, in all amounting to Rs.7,536/-, was decreed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present petition may be stated as follows: The respondent/plaintiff company financed the petitioner/defendant to purchase TVS Centra Motor Cycle for an amount of Rs.32,076/-, wherein the petitioner paid an initial amount of Rs.14,750/-. The shop dealer issued copy of sale letter evidencing the delivery of the vehicle to the petitioner. The petitioner executed necessary documents like Pronote, Loan Agreement with schedule of payments and Letter of Offer, in favour of respondent, wherein he agreed to repay the loan amount by way of post dated cheques. The petitioner issued 18 post dated cheques for Rs.2,109/- each, being the amount of monthly installment, commencing from 07.07.2004 and ending on 07.11.2005. Out of the 18 post dated cheques, 16 post dated cheques were honoured, but two cheques, dated 07.10.2004 and 07.06.2005, for Rs.2,109/- each, were dishonoured. Hence, the suit. 3. Petitioner/defendant filed written statement stating that the bank has collected the amount due from him after dishonour of the cheques and thereafter, returned the two post dated cheques. When the petitioner demanded the respondent - company to give clearance certificate as entire loan amount was paid, but he did not do so and hence, the respondent filed the suit. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, a point “whether the respondent is entitled for suit claim?” is framed for consideration by the trial Court. 5. On behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-9 were got marked. On behalf of the petitioner/defendant, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-5 were got marked. Ex.X-1 was also got marked. 6. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner/defendant is liable to pay the amount covered under the two dishonoured cheques and accordingly, decreed the suit. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the two post dated cheques were dishonoured, the petitioner was called to the bank, and the petitioner paid the amounts covered under the two cheques and so, the respondent returned the two dishonoured cheques to the petitioner; that therefore, there was no amount due to be payable by the petitioner to the respondent - company and hence, she prays to set aside the impugned decree and judgment. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that if really the petitioner paid the amounts covered under the two dishonoured cheques, certainly the respondent - company would have issued a receipt to the petitioner; that the petitioner failed to produce any receipt evidencing the payment of amount covered under the two dishonoured cheques; that the trial Court rightly believed the evidence of respondent – company; that the impugned decree and judgment needs no interference as no illegal or incorrect finding is given by the trial Court and hence, he prays to dismiss the petition. 9. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The petitioner borrowed certain amount from the respondent – company for purchasing a Motorcycle. The petitioner had also given 18 post dated cheques to the respondent, out of which 16 cheques were honoured and 2 cheques were dishonoured for want of funds. The suit claim is relating to the amount covered under the two cheques, which were dishonoured. No doubt, the petitioner has not filed any receipt evidencing the payment of amount due to the respondent. But, at the same time, the two cheques under which the respondent is claiming the amount, are produced by the petitioner. Therefore, it can be presumed in such circumstances that unless the petitioner pays the entire amount covered under Exs.B-2 and B-3 cheques, the respondent would not have returned the two dishonoured cheques to the petitioner. No explanation is forthcoming on behalf of the respondent as to why it returned the two dishonoured cheques to the petitioner. Admittedly, these two dishonoured cheques were in possession of the petitioner, and they were produced before the trial Court by the petitioner and were marked as Exs.B-2 and B-3. This circumstance would clearly go to show that the petitioner must have paid the amount covered under Exs.B-2 and B-3. Perhaps, that is the reason why the respondent might have returned the two dishonoured cheques to the petitioner. This aspect of the case has not been considered by the trial Court. Hence, the impugned decree and judgment is liable to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the decree and judgment, dated 11.03.2008, in S.C.S.No.11 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy. Consequently, the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J September 27, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2449 OF 2008 Between: T. Raghu Prasad .....PETITIONER AND Sri Ram City Union Finance Limited ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2449 OF 2008 September 27, 2010