High Court Kerala High Court

Ramesh P.V. Aged 35 Years vs T.R. Davis on 1 July, 2009

Kerala High Court
Ramesh P.V. Aged 35 Years vs T.R. Davis on 1 July, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RSA.No. 75 of 2009()


1. RAMESH P.V. AGED 35 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. T.R. DAVIS, AGED 38 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID

 Dated :01/07/2009

 O R D E R
                     HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.
               ---------------------------
                    R.S.A.NO.75 OF 2009
                ---------------------------
            DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2009

                            JUDGMENT

Plaintiff in O.S.No.1219/1998 on the file of the

Principal Munsiff’s Court, Irinjalakuda is the appellant. This

appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in

A.S.No.80/2000 on the file of the Additional Sub Court,

Irinjalakuda. The suit was filed for a direction to the defendant

to produce Cheque No.910107 issued in Account No.4475 of the

Federal Bank, Nellayi Branch and to cancel the same by

declaring that it is vitiated by forgery and fraud and therefore

void ab initio. The trial court dismissed the suit, which was

confirmed in appeal. Hence, the second appeal.

2. The case of the plaintiff/appellant is that the

defendant had somehow obtained a Cheque No.910107 from the

cheque book issued to the plaintiff, which was exhibited in an

-2-
R.S.A.No.75/2009

open place in his shop. It is further alleged that the plaintiff did

not have any knowledge about the defendant till the date of

issuance of a lawyer notice dated 22/7/1997 and he met the

defendant only at Pudukad Police Station on 28th July, 1997,

when the police called him to the police station for questioning in

connection with the complaint filed by the plaintiff. It is his case

that the passbook and cheque book were kept openly in his shop-

room, where the general public had accessability, that he did not

care to verify the cheque leaves and that he came to know about

the missing of two cheque leaves (Nos. 910107 and 910108) and

suddenly he reported the matter to the Federal Bank. On receipt

of a lawyer notice dated 24/7/1997 he came to know that cheque

leaves were forged and they were in the possession of the

defendant. It is his further case that he had never issued any

cheque to the defendant and that the defendant had taken the

cheque leaves, misused and forged them and filed a criminal

complaint against the plaintiff. According to him, the signature

-3-
R.S.A.No.75/2009

in the cheque leaf was not put by him and it was forged by the

defendant.

3. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PWs.1 to

3, DW-1, Exts. A2 to A9, B1 to B6 and Exts.X1 to X3. The trial

court elaborately considered the contentions of the respective

parties and concluded that the suit has been filed without any

bona fides, that there is no evidence to prove that the defendant

himself had taken the cheque from the shop of the plaintiff and

forged his signature and produced it before the Bank for getting

payment, that there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff

himself has issued any cheque to the defendant for transaction,

that he wants to escape from the criminal liability, therefore sued

for cancellation of the cheque and that the contentions raised in

the suit is frivolous and without any bona fides. The trial court

dismissed the suit. The Appellate Court also considered the

questions and agreed with the findings of the trial court. The

dismissal of the suit and confirmation by the Appellate Court for

-4-
R.S.A.No.75/2009

the reasons stated elaborately in the judgment requires no

interference by this Court. The findings are purely based on

facts and no different view is possible in the given circumstances.

No question of law much less any substantial question of law

arises for consideration in this appeal.

In the result, the appeal fails and it is accordingly

dismissed in limine.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

appellant/plaintiff that Section 138 proceedings is pending before

the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Irinjalakuda. The said

criminal complaint shall be disposed of on merits untrammelled

by any of the observations made in the civil case, which was

based on the evidence adduced in the case.

HARUN-UL-RASHID,
Judge.

kcv.