A. SHAJAHAN Vs. J. ASOKAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the defendant in O.S.No. 81 of 1994 on the file of the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara. Respondents 1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs 1 and 2 in that suit, which was filed for money based on a dishonoured cheque.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff briefly is as follows. The plaintiff is a timber dealer and he used to supply timber to the defendant on cash and on credit basis. On 7.7.1989 the plaintiff supplied timber worth Rs. 25,000.00 to the defendant and the defendant issued a cheque for the amount drawn on the Bank of Tamil Nadu, Kulasekharam Branch. It is also stated that at the time of issuing the cheque, the defendant requested to present it only after 15.12.1989. The plaintiff presented the cheque on 19.12.1989 through the State Bank of Travanore, Kudappanamoodu Branch. It was returned with an endorsement that the bank was under moratorium That fact was informed to the defendant and he told that the cheque can be encashed on completion of amalgamation process by the defendant and bank authority. After the amalgamation process of the bank with Indian Overseas Bank, the cheque was presented and the same was returned on 2.3.1990 with an enforcement 'out of date'. A suit notice was issued to the defendant and in reply the bank has informed that the cheque became stale and there was no sufficient funds also.

(3.) The case of the defendant is that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant and he has not supplied timber as alleged in the suit. The defendant is a timber merchant at Kulasekaram. While so, in 1989 some cheque leaves of the defendant were found missing. Since the plaintiff has access to all the papers in the defendant's office, he had done the same. When questioned, the plaintiff admitted the same and returned the cheque leaves, except Ext. A2 cheque. The cheque produced is not issued by the defendant. It is not supported by consideration. There was no direction to present the cheque after a particular date. There has never been any transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant. No notice was issued on 2.3.1990, as alleged.