JAGDEEP SINGH Vs. GURJEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant-appellant is in second appeal before this Court.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery against the defendant for recovery of R.63,500/- (Rs.50,000/- as principal and Rs.13,500/- towards interest) on the basis of a cheque dated 26.11.2002 bearing No.973324 issued by Jagdeep Singh, defendant. It was pleaded that in the month of April, 2002 , the defendant was in need of money and accordingly, he had requested the plaintiff along with her husband to advance a loan of Rs.50,000/-. Such loan was advanced in the last week of April 2002, upon which the defendant had agreed to return the said amount in the month of November, 2002. Towards discharging of his liability, on 26.11.2002, the defendant had issued the cheque in question in favour of the plaintiff and the same was drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Amritsar. Upon the presentation of the cheque by the plaintiff through her banker, the same was dishonoured vide memo dated 16.4.2003 with the remarks "No such account". As such, it was pleaded that the defendant had issued a bogus cheque knowingfully well that the same was not to be encashed. Even a legal notice dated 24.4.2003 had been served upon the defendant under registered AD post. Even proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the 1881 Act') have been initiated by the plaintiff and the present suit for recovery was in respect of the loan amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum which comes to Rs.63,500/-.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit and filed a written statement raising a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the suit by stating that since the plaintiff had already initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the 1881 Act, as such, the proceedings of the present suit were liable to be stayed. On merits, it was contended that the defendant had not issued the cheque in question. A stand was taken that the plaintiff had come in possession of the blank cheque pertaining to an account of the defendant which had, in fact, been handed over to another person, namely, Lovely in the year 1998. It was stated that the plaintiff had colluded with such person, namely, Lovely and had filled up a sum of Rs.50,000/- so as to create a false liability on the defendant. The defendant further stated that he had closed his bank account on 18.2.1999 itself i.e. much prior to the date of issuance of the cheque in question.