1 ( 2025:HHC:25592 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.179 of 2025 Date of Decision : 31.07.2025 Het Ram …… Appellant Versus Munish Chauhan ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant : Mr. Mohar Singh, Advocate. For the respondent : Nemo. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The Appellant, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the CPC”), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 03.06.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal No.11 of 2025, affirming the judgment and decree dated 12.05.2023, passed by learned Civil Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Suit No.76/2015. 2. The parties herein shall be referred to in the same manner as they were referred to before the learned trial Court and in the impugned judgment and decree, for the sake of convenience. The brief facts, as emerge from the record, reveal that the plaintiff and the defendant were well acquainted with each other. On 12.04.2014, the defendant approached the plaintiff at his 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:25592 ) residence in Kalehali and requested a loan of 4,00,000/-, citing urgent ₹ necessity. The plaintiff acceded to this request and handed over the said amount to the defendant on the same day in the presence of witness Dhani Ram. The defendant assured repayment within six months and, as a security, issued a signed cheque bearing No. 700721 dated 23.10.2014 for ₹4,00,000/-, drawn on his account No. 970971669 with Indian Bank, Mandi Branch, H.P., assuring that it would be honoured upon presentation. The plaintiff subsequently presented the cheque, but it was dishonoured on 06.11.2014 with the remark "Funds Insufficient," as per the memo received on 12.11.2014. Following this, the plaintiff, through his counsel, issued a legal notice dated 21.11.2014 demanding payment within 15 days. The defendant neither replied to the notice nor repaid the amount, prompting the plaintiff to file a suit for recovery before the learned trial Court. 3. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement, raising preliminary objections regarding locus standi, cause of action, maintainability, estoppel, and suppression of material facts. On merits, the defendant denied the plaintiff’s claims, asserting that he had only borrowed 50,000/- from the ₹ plaintiff, agreeing to repay it with interest within five months. He admitted to handing over a blank cheque (No. 700721) as security but claimed that due to unforeseen circumstances, he could not repay on time and requested an extension. Instead, the plaintiff presented the cheque and issued a legal notice. The defendant further pleaded that after receiving the notice, he paid ₹60,000/- (instead of 50,000/-) to the plaintiff and requested the return of ₹ the cheque, but the plaintiff retained it under false assurances. The 3 ( 2025:HHC:25592 ) defendant alleged that the cheque was never issued to discharge a legally enforceable debt but was misused by the plaintiff to file the present suit. He also claimed that an oral compromise was reached in the first week of December 2014, wherein the plaintiff agreed not to pursue criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, yet proceeded with the civil suit to extract further money. 4. The plaintiff filed a replication reiterating the plaint’s averments and denying the defendant’s contentions. Upon considering the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues on 16.08.2019: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of ₹4,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of issuance of cheque i.e. dated 23.10.2014? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD. 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed the true and material facts from this Court? OPD. 6. Relief.” 5. Both parties were given opportunities to adduce evidence. The plaintiff led his evidence, but the defendant, despite multiple opportunities, failed to do so. Consequently, the Court closed the defendant’s evidence. Aggrieved, the defendant approached the Hon’ble High Court, which granted a final opportunity to lead evidence, subject to costs of 20,000/-. However, the ₹ defendant refused to pay the costs, leading the trial Court to proceed with the 4 ( 2025:HHC:25592 ) matter. After hearing arguments and examining the record, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. 6. The appellant contended that the trial Court’s judgment was erroneous in law and fact, as it failed to properly appreciate the evidence, particularly the contradictions in the cross-examination of PW-1 to PW-3. It was argued that the plaintiff did not prove the defendant’s liability for 4,00,000/-, and the ₹ cheque was issued only as security for a smaller loan of 50,000/-, which ₹ was repaid with interest. The appellant also alleged denial of a fair opportunity to lead evidence despite the High Court’s conditional order. The findings on Issues 1 to 4 were challenged as speculative and unsupported by evidence. The first appellate Court dismissed these contentions, leading to the filing of the present second appeal. 7. Heard Counsel for the Appellant, perused the impugned judgments. 8. The evidence on record establishes that the plaintiff successfully proved his case through documentary and testimonial evidence. PW-1, the bank official, produced authenticated records proving the dishonour of cheque Ext. PW-1/A for 4,00,000/- due to insufficient funds, which remained ₹ unchallenged in cross-examination. The plaintiff as PW-2 consistently maintained his stand regarding the loan transaction, supported by contemporaneous documents including the cheque return memo, legal notice, and postal receipts. His testimony about advancing 4,00,000/- to the ₹ defendant on 12.04.2014 in the presence of witnesses remained unshaken despite cross-examination. PW-3 Baldev Singh corroborated the plaintiff's version, specifically detailing the transaction and cheque issuance. The 5 ( 2025:HHC:25592 ) defendant's contrary claim of having borrowed only 50,000/- and repaying ₹ ₹60,000/- remained entirely unsubstantiated as he failed to lead any evidence despite multiple opportunities, including one final chance granted by the High Court subject to costs which he declined to pay. 9. The two Courts below rightly held that the plaintiff discharged his burden under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act by proving the cheque's execution and its dishonour. The defendant's belated oral defense without any supporting evidence could not override the plaintiff's documentary proof. The conduct of the defendant in not replying to the legal notice while allegedly making partial payment creates serious doubts about his version. The Court's findings on all issues were based on proper appreciation of evidence and law, particularly noting that the defendant's failure to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act proved fatal to his case. 11. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, there arises no question of law, much-less a substantial question of law for consideration of the Court, therefore, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) July 31, 2025 (KS/T.B.) Judge