SAROJ Vs. ANASUYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) THE brief facts are as follows:

(3.) WHILE the learned counsel for the respondent would point out that the entire case of the petitioner was that she had lost two cheque books containing particular numbers and that the same was sought to be misused by the petitioner. If indeed the same had been lost, it is inexplicable that the very cheques in the very series that were supposed to have been issued by the petitioner, as well have been encashed by third parties and the same have been allowed to be encashed without demur, by the petitioner. If indeed they were lost and sought to be misused by third parties, the petitioner would certainly have raised a protest and would have complained against such loss of cheques. If therefore, the case of the petitioner was to be believed, the petitioner was required to explain the circumstances under which the very cheques which were said to be lost, have been duly encashed by third parties and apparently have been issued by the petitioner, and it is a blunder on the part of the petitioner to have falsely claimed that the said cheques were lost. It is this circumstance which has led the court below to disbelieve the defence of the petitioner and it is also pointed out that the court below has taken note of the circumstance that notice under certificate of posting having been served, there is no reply from the petitioner denying the liability that was claimed under the said cheques and therefore, the learned counsel seeking to contend that since the notice sent by way of registered post has been returned as not claimed, there is no due service of notice, is not a contention that can be readily accepted since the notice was also sent under certificate of posting and that is deemed to have been served.