O.XXXVII Rr. 1 & 2--Specific Relief Act, (I of 1877), S. 39--Issuance of guarantee cheque--Purchase of wheat--Cheque was dishonoured--Suit for recovery filed by respondent and suit for cancellation of cheque was filed by appellant--Consolidated judgment--Suit for recovery was decreed and suit for cancellation was dismissed--Criminal case regarding cheque was registered against appellant--Acquittal from charge--Due amount was cleared--No specific date was mentioned on cheque--Ignorance of evidence by trial Court--Challenge to--Impugned cheque was issued for discharge of obligation pertaining to a particular transaction in respect of which respondent had not given any specific date, amount was admittedly cleared--When amount due was cleared, there appeared to be no reason for issuance of impugned cheque in respect of same transaction-- Trial Court erred in appreciating crucial factual aspect of matter and documentary evidence had been erroneously ignored-- It is settled principle of appraising evidence that statement of a witness must be consistent with circumstances of case before same is believed and relied upon--Impugned cheque was lying with respondent side as guarantee on account of admitted business relationship of purchase of wheat to secure any balance due and despite receiving payment in respect of disputed transaction, impugned cheque had been misused--Trial Court has not correctly decided core issues, misread evidence on record and erred in decreeing suit of respondent and dismissing suit of appellant.
0 Comments