P. SUNDARA RAJAN Vs. P.N. AMMACHI GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal suit on hand is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2009 passed in O.S.No.172 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Salem.

(2.) The defendant is the appellant in the appeal suit and the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of money with interest and costs.

(3.) The facts in nutshell as narrated in the plaint are that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- from the plaintiff and issued a cheque No.063931 dated 11.03.2003 drawn on Bank of India Shevapet Branch, Salem-2. The plaintiff presented the cheque before the Indian Bank, Fairlands Branch, Salem-16 for encashment. The said Indian Bank had returned the cheque with an endorsement "payment stopped" by the drawer and the fact was intimated to the plaintiff. The Bank had returned the cheque with a memo dated 15.03.2003. The 'stop payment' instructions given by the defendant to his banker amounts to an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant on 25.03.2003 informing the dishonour and liability for prosecution. The defendant sent a reply containing false particulars. It is false to say that the plaintiff asked for a loan from the defendant and the defendant has issued the cheque to accommodate the plaintiff. The cheque was issued only towards the repayment of the debt due by the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Salem against the defendant and the learned Judge acquitted him. In this regard, the plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same is pending. The plaintiff issued a notice on 03.10.2005 to the defendant calling upon him to pay the entire sum of Rs.17,00,000/- with interest. The defendant received the notice on 05.10.2005. But, he has not repaid the due amount. Thus, the plaintiff was constrained to institute a suit for recovery of money with interest and costs.