(1.) Two substantial questions of law that arise in this second appeal are;
(2.) Ratnavarma Padival the plaintiff, claimed that on 19/3/1999, he lent, the defendant Rathnavarma Ajri, Rs.3.00 lakhs through a cheque, and the defendant's cheque dtd. 30/3/1999, issued towards repayment of the loan is dishonoured.
(3.) The defendant denied the alleged loan transaction. His defence is that the plaintiff misused the blank cheques issued by the defendant, in his long-standing business relationship with the plaintiff, as the defendant refused to sell the shares of the Karnataka theatre, which the plaintiff insisted.