Bangalore District Court
M/S Mathrushri Electricals vs M/S Life Care Enterprises on 22 June, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES AND XXVI A.C.M.M, AT BENGALURU
Present: Abdul Khadar, B.A., LL.B.,
JUDGE, Court Of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 22nd day of June 2020
C.C. No: 1142/2018
Complainant: M/s Mathrushri Electricals,
Rep. by its Proprietor
Mr Francis Xaiver A.R
S/o Late Rajappa
Aged about 37 years,
R/at No.276, 6th cross
Vikramadithya road,
Lakshmipuram
Hanumantha Nagar,
Bangalore-560 019.
(By Sri. S Chennakesavulu-
Advocate.)
-Vs-
Accused: 1. M/s Life Care Enterprises
(partnership Firm)
Rep.by its Partners
1. Naveen Kumar singh
2. Chandra Shekar S
2. Naveen Kumar Singh
Major
Partner M/s Lifecare Enterprises
SCH-09 2 CC.1142/2018
No.63, 4th main
Sameerpura, Chamarajpet
Bangalore-560 018.
3. Chandra Shekar S
S/o Srinivas
Aged about 39 years,
Partner M/s Life Care Enterprises,
No.34, 2nd floor,
Opp.Ram Mandir road,
Kaveri Nagar, BSK 3rd stage
Bangalore-560 085.
And also all are at:
Off: No.374/A, 2nd floor,
Shop No.3, Sapthagiri complex,
80 feet road, Srinivasanagar,
Opp. Bank Colony Bus stand
Bsk 1st stage, Bangalore-50.
(By Sri. S.K., Advocate)
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed the private complaint under Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C., against the accused No.1 to 3 for having committed an offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. It is the case of the complainant that, the accused No.1 to 3 and himself are well known to each other from past several years. On 08-05-2015 the accused No.2 and 3 approached the complainant for financial assistance of Rs.4,80,000/- for development of business.
SCH-09 3 CC.1142/2018The complainant has paid the said loan amount of Rs.4,80,000/- by way of cash on 08-05-2015 to the accused persons and by receiving the same the accused have promised to repay the same within two year 6 months. After receiving the said hand loan of Rs.4,80,000/- the accused No. 2 and 3 on behalf of first accused, have issued post dated cheque bearing No.312289, dated 19-12-2017 for Rs.4,80,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Kempegowda Nagar Branch, Bangalore in favour of the complainant with an assurance that the same would be honoured on its presentation. As per instructions of accused, complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker, State Bank of India, Chamarajpet Branch, Bengaluru but the said cheque was returned for the reasons "Funds Insufficient" vide endorsement dated 20-12-2017. Immediately the complainant informed the accused No.2 and 3 about dishonoring of cheques, but they have not come forward to repay the dishonoured cheque amount. Hence, the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused No. 1 to 3 office and residential address on 19-01-2018 through RPAD calling upon them to repay the dishonoured cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of said notice. The said notice was duly served to the residential SCH-09 4 CC.1142/2018 address of the accused No.3 on 24-01-2018 and other notice sent to office address were returned with shara Door Lock and intimation delivered on 25-01-2018. After receiving the demand notice the accused persons neither paid the amount nor replied to the notice. Hence, the accused have committed an offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act. Accordingly, the complianant has filed the present complaint to take action against the accused in accordance with law.
3. Being satisfied with the complaint averments, this Court has taken cognizance and after recording sworn statement being satisfied with the prima-facie case, issued summons to the accused persons compelling their appearance. In pursuance of service of summons the accused No.2 and 3 have appeared through their counsel before this Court and got enlarged on bail.
4. Before framing of accusation, the complainant and accused no.2 were settled this matter in part and they filed joint memo admitting the liability to pay the amount of Rs.4,80,000/- to the complainant and accused No.2 agreed to pay his share amount of Rs.1,80,000/- out of Rs.4,80,000/- and agreed to pay the same within three months. The complainant also agreed and receive the said agreed amount from the accused No.2 on 13-02-2020.
SCH-09 5 CC.1142/2018But the complainant not filed memo for withdrawn the case against accused No.2 and hence, the substance of accusation was read over to the accused No.3. Accused pleaded not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.138 of N.I. Act. Hence, this Court called upon the complainant to prove his case.
5. In support of the case, the complainant himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked 14 documents as per Ex.P1 to P.14. After closure of evidence of Complainant, the accused no.3 was examined as contemplated U/s.313 Cr.P.C and his statement was recorded. The accused no.3, totally denied the case of the complainant and he has defense evidence. Accused no.3 himself examined as DW1 and got marked eleven documents at Exs.D1 to D.11 on his behalf.
6. Heard arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the complainant and the accused and perused the documents available on records.
7. Now the points that arise for my consideration are:
1.Whether the complainant proves that, the accused No.2 and 3 have issued cheque bearing No.312289 dated 19-12-
2017 for sum of Rs.4,80,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Kempegowda Nagar Branch, Bengaluru towards discharge of accused SCH-09 6 CC.1142/2018 No.1 legal liability and when the said cheque presented for encashment, which came to be dishonoured with an endorsement as "Funds Insufficient"
after issuance of legal notice, they fails to repay dishonoured cheque amount within the stipulated period and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act?
2. What order?
8. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : As per the final order below for the following:
REASONS Point No.1:-
9. It is pertinent to note that, whenever a private complainant is filed seeking prosecution of the accused no. 1 to 3 for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, if the issuance of cheque and the signature on the cheque is accepted and admitted by the accused no. 2 and 3, an initial presumption as to be raised by the Court in favour of the complainant, that the cheque in question was issued towards legally recoverable debt or liability. Of course, this presumption is rebuttable presumption. Such rebuttable evidence has to be placed SCH-09 7 CC.1142/2018 before the Court by the accused persons. It is well known that, the accused can rebut the said legal presumption either by cross-examination of complainant or by leading evidence. The complainant himself examined as PW.1 filed affidavit by way of chief examination has reiterated the versions of complaint. I would not like to reproduce the same to avoid repetition of facts since the complainant has explained the details of complaint averments in chief examination. The complainant has produced 14 documents at Ex.P1 to P14.
10. So far as the document is concerned Exs.P1 is the cheque bearing Nos.312289 dated 19-12-2017 for Rs.4,80,000/- cheque drawn on Canara Bank, Kempegowda, Bengaluru. Ex.P1(a) is the signature of accused no.3. Ex.P2 is the Bank Endorsement issued by SBI Bank, Chamrajapet Branch, Bengaluru, stating that, the cheque was not honoured for the reason of "Funds Insufficient" on 20-12-2017. Ex.P3 is the legal notice issued on 19-01-2018, wherein complainant called upon the accused no.1 to 3 to make payment of Rs.4,80,000/- within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. Ex.P.4 to 8 are the postal receipts. Ex.P9 track consignment, Ex.P.10 is the endorsement and Ex.P11 and 14 are the 4 SCH-09 8 CC.1142/2018 unserved RPAD covers and Ex.P11(a) and (14(a) are the contents of Ex.P11 and 14. According to the learned counsel for the complainant, when the issuance of cheque and accused No.3 signature are admitted, then the presumption as required under Section 139 of N.I. Act comes to the aid of the complainant. It is the turn of the accused to explain or rebut the said presumption by raising a probable defence.
11. In this regard, the court has to see whether the accused No.3 has been successful in rebutting the presumption through cross-examination of PW-1 and his evidence. In support of his defence, the accused cross examined PW-1 in length, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW-1 that no debt exists under Ex.P.1. PW-1 deposed that himself and accused no. 2 are friends, he is running Mathrushree Electricals since 2009. He knows the contents of chief affidavit by filed him. He had yearly 7-8 lakhs income during the year 2014-15. He is not an income tax assessee. He deposed that at the time of obtaining licence to run Mathrushree Electricals he opened bank account. He knows accused no. 2 and 3 for the past 32 years. The accused no.2 is working as software engineering. The accused no.3 is working as medical assistant in Parma. The accused no.2 and 3 have SCH-09 9 CC.1142/2018 approached for the hand loan to start Life care Enterprises on 08-05-2015. He paid Rs.4,80,000/- by way of cash on the same day. The accused assured him to repay the afore said amount within three years. To that effect he has not obtained any documents, but on the same day accused have issued cheque, copy of partnership deed, VAT certificate and licence pertains to Life care Enterprises. He admits that the accused no.2 filed memo before the agreeing to settle the matter for Rs.1,80,000/- of his share. He denied that before presentment of cheque the accused no.3 had issued notice. He do not remember whether the SJP police have called accused no.3 before police station on 28-12-2017 in respect of cheque in question. He admits that after 2016 accused has not all a partner of the firm. He do not know the present partners of the firm. He denied that the accused no.3 left the firm on 12-09-2015 to that effect there was re-construction partnership deed entered in between accused no.2 and 3. He do not know by virtue of said deed accused no.2 made his mother in law as a partner and accused no.2 given a letter to the bank for the change of partner. He do not remember the accused no.2 given letter to accused no.3 on 12-09-2015. He denied that by colluding with the SCH-09 10 CC.1142/2018 accused no.2 to grab money he contesting the case against the accused no.3.
12. In the further cross examination he deposed that, on 08-05-2015 about 6.00 p.m., by filling the contents of the Ex.P1 accused No.3 handed over to him, at that time accused no.2 also present. He admits on 28- 12-2017 the accused no.3 issued notice to him as the said document is marked at Ex.D1 on confrontation and the said notice served on him as the postal acknowledgment marked at Ex.D2, copy of partnership deed entered between accused no.2 and 3 has been marked at Ex.D3. He denied that the accused no.3 is not a partner by colluding with accused No.2 by creating document, filed this false case against accused no.3.
13. Admittedly, in the cross examination of PW-1, the accused has not elicited from the mouth of PW.1 that there is no existence of legally recoverable debt payable by the accused persons to the complainant as they have not taken any amount from the complainant. Hence the complainant proved his case from four corners of NI Act. The accused no.2 and 3 have not at all disputed the issuance of cheque or signature on it. Hence it is crystal clear that the cheque in question was issued by the accused in favour of complainant towards discharge of SCH-09 11 CC.1142/2018 accused No.1 firm liability. If at all, the cheque was misused by the complainant, what prevented the accused no.3 to take legal action against the complainant immediately after the receipt of demand notice. To escape from the liability, the accused intentionally denied the transaction.
14. The statutory presumption under Sec.139 of N.I. Act explains initial presumption infavour of the producer of an instrument. It says court shall presume that one instrument is handed over infavour of another person only for the purpose of recover of existed debt. Therefore, the statutory presumption explained under Sec.139 of N.I. Act always provides presumption infavour of the complainant. But, it does not mean that the statutory presumption cannot be rebutted. The said presumption can be rebutted at the strength of strong oral and documentary evidence. Let us see the attempt of the accused to rebut the evidence of complainant.
15. To defeat the case of the complainant, accused no.3 himself examined as DW-1, wherein he deposed that he was a partner of M/S Life Care Enterprises under partnership deed on 09-12-2014, consequently, being active partner along with accused no.2, he came to be involved in day to day activity of partnership business. In SCH-09 12 CC.1142/2018 the course of firm business himself and his partner had any financial crises to raise any loan from any person or from the complianant. He further deposed that due to unavoidable circumstances and pre occupation in his personal obligation, he retired from partnership firm with the permission of other partner, allowing him to continue with the firm business, by getting inducted another partner Mr Kasthuri Bai in to the business under re constitution of partnership deed dated 12-09-2015. The continued partner of the Firm have taken ongoing Firm business along with assets and liability in its entirely, by relieving and renouncing him of the same with immediate effect and also provided letter dated 12-09-2015, stating that he has no authority or responsible on any financial or any assets of the company followed by a letter to the Bank manager informing the change in re constitution of Firm. Hence, the accused no.2 is not authorized by bank transaction. The accused no.2 and the complianant colluding each other by misused the signed cheque and he has dragged came unnecessary to S.J.P police station and harassed him to undertake to pay Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant. As he got issued legal notice dated 28-12-2017 to the Francis Xavier A.R was called upon to resist from his unlawful venture. On 12-09-2015 he was neither liable nor SCH-09 13 CC.1142/2018 responsible with regard to the activity partnership. He has not obtained any loan from the complianant and not issued a cheque in question to complianant to discharge of any loan during his tenure as partner in the firm. Hence, he prays to dismiss the case against him. He produced letter dated 12-09-2015 as Ex.D4, letter dated 16-12-2015 at Ex.D5, Form A at Ex.D6, three postal receipts at Ex.D7 to 9 and unserved postal covers marked as Ex.D10 and 11. Contents of Ex.D10 and 11 marked as Ex.D10(a) and 11(a).
16. DW-1 in his cross-examination he categorically admits that Ex.D1, 10 and 11 notices are one and the same. Ex.D3 is the Xerox copy. Ex.P1(a) signature belongs to him. He signed on Ex.P1 on behalf of Life care Enterprises. He further deposed that he is working Admin Assistant at IND Global Company since 2-3 years. He do not remember whether Ex.P1 cheque dishonoured from the bank on 20-12-2017. He admits that he issued a notice on 28-12-2017 to the company. He denied that after dishonour of cheque he got information from the bank, thereafter he issued Ex.D1 notice to the complainant. In Ex.D1 on what purpose cheque issued has not been mentioned. He denied that Ex.P1 cheque issued by him and accused no.2 on behalf accused no.1 firm in SCH-09 14 CC.1142/2018 favour of complainant. He denied that towards discharge of Rs.4,80,000/- he issued Ex.P1 on 08-05-2015 by mentioning the date after two years. As per Ex.D6 they started Life Care Enterprises on 09-10-2014 till 31-08- 2015. He was the partner of the said company as he also liable for the assets and liability of the Firm till 31-08- 2015. He denied that he is look after the welfare of Life Care Enterprises during year 2016-2017. He himself paid Rs.10/- to the Registrar of Firm in the name of Life Care Enterprises on 30-12-2017. He denied that Ex.D4 document was created himself by colluding accused no.2. He admits that he himself signed Ex.D5 documents as presented to the bank. He further admits that the address mentioned in chief affidavit in the residential address, he residing in the month of April-2018 afore said address and also he receiving the letter it was sent to the said address.
17. The above said evidence of DW-1 clearly corroborates the case of the complainant that, there is legally recoverable debt on Ex.P1 by the accused persons to the complainant. Accused has not made out a probable defence so as to shift the burden on the complainant. The accused No.3 has failed to establish his defence that the cheque was misused by the complainant which was signed by him prior to resign from the partnership firm. Thus, SCH-09 15 CC.1142/2018 accused has failed to rebut the presumption arisen in favour of complainant under Sections 118(a) and 139 of N.I. Act.
18. It is pertinent to note that ordinarily in the cheque bounce cases, what the court has to consider is, whether ingredients of the offence enumerated in Section 138 of the Act have been met and if so, whether the accused was able to rebut the statutory presumption contemplated by Sec.139 of the Act. Once, the cheque relates to the account of the accused and he or she accepts and admits the signature on the said cheque, then initial presumption has contemplated under Sec.139 of the N.I. Act has to be raised by the court in favour of the complainant. The presumption referred in Sec.139 of N.I. Act is a mandatory presumption and not a general presumption.
19. On perusal of the evidence it reveals that after service of notice, the accused No.3 has not taken any legal action against complainant. This defence of DW-1 clearly establishes the fact that the story created by the accused is false. When the accused no.3 has admitted Ex.P1 cheque belongs to accused No.1 firm and he was a partner of M/S Life Care Enterprises under partnership deed on 09-12-2014, consequently, being active partner SCH-09 16 CC.1142/2018 along with accused no.2, he came to be involved in day to day activity of partnership business. In the course of firm business himself and his partner had any financial crises to raise any loan from any person or from the complianant and admits his signature on Ex.P1, it is sufficient to hold that the complainant has proved the existence of debt under Ex.P1 by the accused no.3. Thus, it clearly goes to show that since the accused had issued the cheque in question to the complainant for consideration. The notice Ex.P3 issued by the complainant was return as door locked, but during the course of cross examination of DW.1, he categorically admits that he is residing in the address shown on chief affidavit. Hence, it is quit clear that the accused avoided the service of notice and he got knowledge about the contents of notice, but the accused has not taken any legal action against complainant there itself the accused has failed to raise the probable defence. The documents on record shows that the accused borrowed loan from the complainant for business of firm along with accused No2 and the accused issued the cheque at Ex.P1 to the complainant to discharge accused No.1 firm liability.
20. It is pertinent to note that ordinarily in the cheque bounce cases, what the court has to consider is, SCH-09 17 CC.1142/2018 whether ingredients of the offence enumerated in Section 138 of the Act have been met and if so, whether the accused was able to rebut the statutory presumption contemplated by Sec.139 of the Act. Once, the cheque relates to the account of the accused and he or he accepts and admits the signatures on the said cheque, then initial presumption has contemplated under Sec.139 of the N.I. Act has to be raised by the court in favour of the complainant. The presumption referred in Sec.139 of N.I. Act is a mandatory presumption and not a general presumption.
21. In this regard I have relied Apex Court decision reported in (2019) 4 SCC 197 in the case of Bir Singh v/S Muskesh Kumar wherein in it is held that, Sec.139 introduces an exception to the general rule as the burden of proof and shifts the onus on the accused, The presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is a presumption of law as distinguished from presumption of facts. Presumption are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of innocence, which requires the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumption of law and presumptions of fact, unless the SCH-09 18 CC.1142/2018 accused adduces evidence showing the reasonable possibility of the non existence of the presumed fact as held in Hiten P Dalal. But mere denial or rebuttal by the accused was not enough , he accused had to prove by cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability.
22. In this regard, it is useful to refer decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.867/2016 (arising out of SLP(CRL) No. 5410 /2014) in the case of Sampelly Satyanarana Rao V/s. Indian Renewable Energy Development, wherein it is held that in "Rangappa V/s Mohan, this court held that once issuance of a cheque and signature thereon are admitted presumption of a legally enforceable debt in favour of the holder of the cheque arises, it is for the accused to rebut the said presumption, though accused need not adduce the own evidence and can rely upon the material submitted by the complainant. However mere statement of the accused may not be sufficient to rebut the said presumption. On perusal of the evidence, it reveals that after service of notice or summons from the Court, the accused has not taken any legal action against complainant and the evidence of PW.1 clearly shows that the complainant having sufficient income for advancement the loan in question to the accused in the year 2014, SCH-09 19 CC.1142/2018 since it is a meager amount and the complainant is doing real estate business. During the cross examination the accused was not denied the source of income to lend loan to the accused. Hence, the defence of DW-1 clearly establishes the fact that the story created by the accused is false. When the accused has admitted Ex.P1 cheque belongs to accused No.1 firm account, it is sufficient to hold that the complainant has proved the existence of debt under Ex.P1 by the accused. Thus it clearly goes to show that since the accused had issued the cheque in question to the complainant for consideration.- The notice Ex.P3 issued by the complainant was return with a reason door lock, after that the accused has not taken any legal action against complainant, there, itself the accused has failed to raise the probable defence. The documents on record shows that the complainant had lent the money to the accused and the accused issued the cheque to the complainant to discharge the amount owed by accused.
23. Now, the question that arises that whether the issuance of cheque in question by the accused to discharge the liability of him to the complainant comes under the purview of Sec.138 of N.I. Act or not. It is settled law that in order to draw the presumption under Sec.118 read along with 139 of N.I. Act, the burden was heavily upon SCH-09 20 CC.1142/2018 the complainant to have shown that he had required funds for having advanced the money to the accused, that the issuance of the cheque in support of the said payment advanced was true and that the accused was bound to make the payment as had been agreed while issuing the cheque infavour of the complainant.
24. In the present case also the accused has not rebutted the presumption U/s.139 of N.I. by cross examining the PW1 that Ex.P1 cheque was not given towards legally recoverable debt or liability. As per the aforesaid rulings, the presumption mandated by Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act includes that this exists legally enforceable debt or liability, which is rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise defence wherein the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. The complainant has proved that the accused had issued the cheque in question to the complainant to discharge his liability which accused No.1 firm owed to him. When such being the case the contention of the accused No.3 and submission of learned counsel for the accused that the accused did not borrow any amount from the complainant and hence, he is not liable to pay the amount of cheque cannot be acceptable. Moreover, the accused No.2 admitting his liability he paid SCH-09 21 CC.1142/2018 part payment of Rs.1,80,000/- to the complainant in open court and the accused No.3 himself admits that he had financial crises with the complainant along with accused No.2 during his tenure as partner of accused No.1 firm. Thus, the story brought by the accused is unworthy of credit apart from being unsupported by any evidence.
25. The oral and documentary evidence available on record are clearly and categorically established all the ingredients of Section 138 of N.1.Act and also proved the fact that the accused had issued the cheque in question in favour of the complainant for consideration towards the discharge of liability and the said cheque was 14dishonoured and then the accused failed to pay the amount of cheque within 15 days from the date of service of the demand notice. Hence, the dishonor of the cheques in question is clearly attracts the penal provision of Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the complainant has proved the guilt leveled against the accused for the offence P/u/s Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The accused has utterly failed to rebut the presumption under Sec.138 of N.I. Act infavour of the complainant. Hence, the complainant is entitled for benefit of statutory presumption as contemplated under Sec.139 of the Act. I did not find any informalities or contradictions elicited to render his SCH-09 22 CC.1142/2018 evidence incredible. Therefore, the testimony of PW-1 inspires confidence to believe and to act upon the evidence of PW.1 and the documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to P14 are consistence, corroborative and supporting to each other and in accordance with the case of the complainant and which leads me to conclude that the complainant has proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused for the alleged offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I. Act. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative. Point No.2:
26. In view of my above discussions and findings on Points No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 255[2] of Cr.P.C, the accused No.1 to 3 are hereby convicted for the offence Punishable U/s. 138 of the N.I. Act.
The accused No.2 and 3 shall pay fine of
Rs.5,00,000/-.
In default of payment of fine amount, the accused No.2 and 3 shall under go Simple Imprisonment for six months.
Out of the amount so realized, the accused No.2 and 3 shall pay a sum of Rs.4,95,000/- to the Complainant as compensation, as provided U/s.357 Cr.P.C. The remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- shall go to the State.SCH-09 23 CC.1142/2018
The bail bond and cash security amount of the accused No.2 and 3 is hereby stand cancelled and forfeited to the state.
Office is directed to furnish free copy of this judgment to the accused No.2 and 3. (Dictated to the stenographer on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of June 2020.) (Abdul Khadar) Judge, Court of Small Causes & XXVI ACMM,Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of omplainant:
PW1 Framcis Xaiver List of Documents marked on behalf of complainant: Ex.P1 : Cheque, Ex.P1(a) : Sig.of accused Ex.P2 : Bank Endorsement Ex.P3 : Legal notice Ex.P4 to 8 : Postal receipts Ex.P9 : Track consignment Ex.P10 : endorsement Ex.P11 to 14 : 4 postal RPAD cover
Ex.P11(a) to 14(a): original notice in postal cover List of Witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
D.W.1 Chandrashekar S List of documents marked on behalf of accused:
Ex.D.1 Copy of legal notice
Ex.D.2 Postal acknowledgment
Ex.D.3 Xerox copy of partnership deed
SCH-09 24 CC.1142/2018
Ex.D.4 Letter dated 12-09-2015
Ex.D.5 Letter dated 16-12-2015
Ex.D-6 Form No.A
Ex.D-7-9 3 postal receipts
Ex.D-10-11 2 Postal cover
Ex.D-10(a) &11(a) :Original notice in postal cover (Abdul Khadar) Judge, Court of Small Causes & XXVI ACMM, Bengaluru