PUTTAMALLA Vs. N. SHIVANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appellant was the defendant in O.S.No.6274/1994 in the Court of the learned XXX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "Trial Court") which suit was instituted against him by the present respondent in his capacity as a plaintiff.

(2.) The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the Trial Court was that, on 19-06-1994, the defendant borrowed a loan of a sum of Rs.85,000/- from him for purchase of a Metador Van vehicle and had agreed to repay the said loan amount within three months along with interest. The defendant by adding another sum of Rs.5,000/- towards interest to the loan amount, issued a post-dated cheque for a sum of Rs.90,000/- on 12-08-1994 to the plaintiff. When the said cheque was presented for realisation, it came to be dishonoured. Despite issuance of legal notice since the defendant failed to repay the said loan amount together with interest there upon, the plaintiff instituted a suit against him for recovery of a sum of Rs.92,925/- with interest there upon.

(3.) In response to the summons, the defendant appeared through his counsel in the Trial Court and filed his Written Statement wherein he denied the alleged loan transaction. He has also denied that he had issued any cheque to the plaintiff towards the alleged repayment of the loan. On the other hand, the defendant contended that the plaintiff was running several Chit Schemes wherein the defendant was a member and every member of the Chit was required to give a security for the total amount of the Chit to avoid himself becoming a defaulter after bidding and obtaining the Chit amount. It was in compliance with the said terms that the defendant had issued a blank cheque as a security to the plaintiff with the specific understanding that the cheque will be returned by the plaintiff after the said scheme is closed. However, even after closure of the Chit scheme, the plaintiff did not return the said cheque to him. On the other hand, the plaintiff has misused the said cheque and had instituted the present suit, seeking recovery of money from him.