Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

24. Defendant while appearing as DW-2 narrated such version in his examination-in-chief which was quite different to his pleadings in application for leave to defend. He stated on oath that he had been dealing with Firm Arsh Casting and had been purchasing steel from the said firm. Plaintiff was its proprietor. It was the plaintiff, who had demanded the cheques from the defendant and thereafter he had issued the cheques Ext. P-1 and Ext. P-2 to the plaintiff without dates. He further .

stated that he had not taken any loan from the plaintiff and all his accounts with the firm 'Arsh Castings' were settled.

25. The shift in the stand of defendant is unexplainable.

Such shift gains special significance in the suit under Order 37 of the Code. Had the defendant taken the same stand in his application for leave to defend, as was later taken by him in his examination-in-chief, there was a clear possibility of different result. In his application for leave to defend, defendant had specifically mentioned that he had no dealings with the plaintiff and it was Sh. C. N. Chaudhary, father of the plaintiff, with whom, the defendant had been dealings. The cheques were issued by defendant on the asking of Sh. C. N. Chaudhary, whereas in his statement on oath, defendant stated that he did not even know that the father of plaintiff Sh. C. N. Chaudhary had no share in the firm. In his application for leave to defend, the specific stand of the defendant was that he had issued the cheques as security on account of his business dealings with Sh. C. N. Chaudhary, whereas in his statement before the Court, he mentioned to have issued the cheques to the plaintiff, though without dates. Defendant had not made any mention of settlement of accounts in his application for leave to defend, whereas in his statement on oath, it was so stated.

.

26. While being cross-examined on behalf of plaintiff, the defendant stated that he had business dealings with Arsh Castings since 1991 but the cheques Ext. P-1 and Ext. P-2 were issued in 1995. It was also stated by this witness that he had entered the goods supplied to him by Arch Castings in the books maintained by him. He clarified that he paid the cash on bills received from the Firm against goods supplied to him. He also admitted that he had been provided with the receipts of payments executed by plaintiff and were duly entered in his account books.

27. The sole oral testimony of defendant, made in aforesaid manner, cannot be said to be sufficient to rebut legal presumption attached to cheques Ext. P-1 and Ext. P-2. The different stands taken by the defendant in his application for leave to defend and in his deposition before Court casts serious doubt on the veracity of his defence.

28. Further, the case of defendant was based on the hypothesis that he had business dealings with Arsh Castings.