SATISH Vs. K N DAYANANDA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This defendant's revision is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.5.2009 passed in S.C.1056/ 2007 on the file of Court of Small Causes Judge, Bangalore (SCCH-17).

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as under: The petitioner herein is defendant and the respondent is plaintiff in S.C.No. 1056/2007, filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.14,000/- with cost and interest at 18% p.a from the date of suit till realization. The plaintiffs case is that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 10.7.2006 promising to re-pay with interest at 18% p.a. and the said loan was taken by him to meet his domestic needs. In that behalf, he had issued a cheque bearing No. 664926 dated 11.07.2006 for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of plaintiff, which was drawn on HDFC Bank, Katriguppe Main Road Branch, Bangalore. Plaintiff presented the said cheque on 26.10.2006, the same was returned with an endorsement 'account closed'. Thereafter, in the year 2007, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of Rs. 14,000/- (which is inclusive of principle and interest from 10.07.2006 till date of suit) along with interest at 18% p.a. In the said suit the defendant entered appearance, filed statement admitting issuance of cheque and his signature thereon. His defence is the said cheque was issued by him in anticipation of loan which was agreed to be given by the plaintiff. The loan was not given to him, for nearly 1 year there was no transaction in that behalf. After one year plaintiff filed the suit on the ground that the cheque was issued in a loan transaction Plaintiff has not produced any documents to show loan transaction with defendant and he has also not adduced any evidence in support of his case. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the suit. The said suit on trial came to be allowed in part. Suit is decreed for Rs. 12,500/- with cost and interest at 12% p.a., on Rs. 10,000/- from the date of suit till realization.

(3.) The defendant has filed this revision on the ground that the Court below has not exercised its jurisdiction properly. There was no evidence available on record to decree the suit, the Court below has not considered the fact that the primary responsibility of establishing existence of debt which resulted in issuing of such cheque by the defendant is on the plaintiff. In the present case since the plaintiff has failed to establish the same, there is an error on the part of the Court of Small Causes in believing the incomplete and insufficient evidence on record and decreeing plaintiffs suit, which requires to be set aside in this revision petition.