IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 844 of 2007()
1. I.K.SADANANDAN, KUNNANATH HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. A.V.PHALGUNAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.PREMCHAND
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :28/09/2007
O R D E R
M.N.Krishnan, J.
========================
C.R.P.No.844 of 2007
========================
Dated this the 28th day of September, 2007.
ORDER
This Revision is preferred against the judgment of the
Subordinate Judge, Thalassery in A.S.No.9 of 2004. At the
outset, I may state that this Court is only exercising the
revisional jurisdiction and unless there is patent illegality,
irregularity or perversity, this Court is not expected to interfere
with the concurrent findings of fact and even in Second Appeal,
the Apex Court has held that even if different view is possible,
the Second Appellate Court is not competent to substitute its
view with regard to the concurrent views of the court below.
With this fact, let me allow to analyse the matter and find out
whether this can be admitted at this stage.
2. The suit is one for realisation of an amount of
Rs.20,000/- alleged to be due from the defendant. It is
submitted that in discharge of the liability a cheque was issued.
CRP 844/07 -: 2 :-
When the cheque was presented for encashment, it was returned
for insufficiency of funds. Notice was issued. A criminal
complaint, S.T. No.365 of 1998 was filed. But unfortunately
another notice was also sent and therefore the criminal complaint
was withdrawn. Thereafter, the present case is instituted.
3. The defendant at least admits that he had borrowed a
sum of Rs.7,000/- in December, 1997 and would submit that he
had put his signature in a blank cheque and given it as a security.
Documentary evidence and oral evidence were adduced in this
matter and both the courts below on an appreciation of the
evidence, came to the conclusion regarding the genuineness of
the claim of the plaintiff. One of the aspects, which was
highlighted by the defendant is regarding the non-mentioning of
Rs.3,000/-, which was received by the plaintiff. It has to be
stated that the said amount was received only after filing of the
suit and the cheque issued on that behalf was dishonoured. The
plaintiff submitted that he had received Rs.3,000/- in the chief
affidavit and only prayed for a decree for the balance amount.
So, on analysing the evidence of both the parties, both the courts
below arrived at a conclusion. I do not find that there is any
CRP 844/07 -: 3 :-
perverse approach or illegality committed by the courts below in
appreciating the evidence.
Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
M.N.Krishnan,
Judge.
ess 28/9