SAHAB SINGH Vs. SAJJAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 16.2.2000 passed by the learned District Judge, whereby the appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, were set aside and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that Sahab Singh plaintiff had filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 17,400/- against the defendants, with the allegations that defendants No. 1 and 2 had taken a loan of Rs. 15,000/-, vide two separate cheques dated 5.3.1994 of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5000/- respectively, totalling to Rs. 15,000/- from the plaintiff and that defendants No. 1 and 2 had withdrawn the amount by depositing the said cheques in their saving bank account. It was alleged that defendants No. 1 and 2 had agreed to pay interest on the said loan along with Rs. 15,000/- on demand. It was alleged that a sum of Rs. 2400/- had fallen due towards interest besides Rs. 15,000/- towards principal and total amount recoverable was Rs. 17,400/-. It was alleged that the plaintiff approached the defendants for the repayment of the amount. Defendants No. 1 and 2 issued cheque dated 5.5.1994 for Rs. 15,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and when the plaintiff had gone to the bank of the defendants for payment, it was found that the bank account, against which the said cheque had been issued, has been closed by defendants No. 1 and 2 and accordingly, the cheque was returned to the plaintiff by the bank as unpaid.

(3.) THE plaintiff filed replication to the written statement, controverting the allegations contained in the written statement, alleging therein that there was a committee of 20 members of which defendant No. 1 was the President and defendant No. 2 was the Treasurer and that the plaintiff was a bidder and gave a bid of Rs. 5,000/- and thereupon, defendants No. 1 and 2 issued cheque dated 11.10.1994 in favour of the plaintiff for the payment of said amount of Rs. 5,000/-, which was withdrawn by him and that the amount of Rs. 5,000/- was not paid to the plaintiff in lieu of the amount of Rs. 5,000/- which the plaintiff had advanced as loan to the defendants. It was denied that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid to Brij Bhan under the directions of the plaintiff. It was also denied that the rate of interest agreed to was 1 per cent, but it was alleged that the rate of interest was 2 per cent.