PARAS RAM Vs. INDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff/respondent herein instituted, a suit against the defendant, for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum. The suit of the plaintiff stood decreed by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom, by the aggrieved defendant, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal of the defendant. The defendant standing aggrieved by the impugned verdict, hence, concerts to assail it, by preferring an appeal therefrom before this Court.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest with the pleadings that he was owner in possession of orchard having fruit bearing apple plants at Neri. The plaintiff sold apple crop in the year 2005 to the defendant. The defendant purchased 350 apple boxes and approximately 130 bag for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 30.09.2005. In discharge of this lawful liability and to pay price of apples, the defendant issued cheque No.904502, of 30.09.2005 drawn at State Bank of India, Kali Bari, Shimla, amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-. The aforesaid cheque was presented by the plaintiff with his bankers. The cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and was returned along with intimation memos dated 11.10.2005 and 15.11.2005. The plaintiff requested the defendant to make payment of Rs.1,00,000/- by issuing notice dated 23.11.2005, however, despite receipt of notice, the defendant failed to make the paying. It has been further pleaded that the plaintiff preferred a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, which was also pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,Court No.4, Shimla.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement. The defendant denied that he had purchased boxes of apple for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded that he cheque was issued to one Sh. Inder Singh, son of Dharam Dass, who had lost the cheque while travelling in a bus. The matter was reported to the police vide Rapat No.6, dated 23.10.2005 at Police Post, Deha. It was denied that there was any subsisting and existing liability of the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant admitted that complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Shimla.