Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(ii) Pay in slip/deposit slip of Cheque bearing no. 197034 dated 15.12.2012 is Ex.PW1/2.

(iii) Return memo of cheque bearing no. 197034 with remarks "instrument outdated/state" is Ex.PW1/3.

(iv) Canara Bank statement of plaintiff bearing account no. 3008101007502 is Ex.PW1/4 mentioning entry of amount of Rs.2,50,000/- at point A. PW-1 was cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for defendant and PE was closed vide order dated 21.07.2022.

18. The cheque Ex.PW1/1 does not aid the plaintiff in view of the absence of the proof to the effect that the same was filled by the defendant himself. Perusal of the cheque Ex.PW1/1 which is filed in original on the court record shows that the signatures and the other details are in different ink. Further, the perusal of the cheque also shows that the same was issued by the bank somewhere in 1900s and the date which is filled is 15.12.2012. Hence, naturally, the cheque was a stale/outdated cheque. However, the handing over of the cheque by the defendant is not in dispute. Hence, the Court shall not go into those details. However, as mentioned above, the signatures and the other details are in different ink. This has also been discussed above that none of the parties moved an application to ascertain as to whether the details in the cheque were filled by the defendant or not. As the onus to prove this issue that he had advanced a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- to the defendant was on the plaintiff, the primary onus to prove this fact remained on him. However, in the opinion of the court, the same has not been discharged.