IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.241/2025 Date of Decision: 13th November, 2025. Sham Gopal Sharma .....Appellant Versus Rakesh Kumar. …..Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. R.P. 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, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 15.05.2025, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Una, District Una, HP in Civil Appeal No.79/2024, affirming the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2024, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Una, District Una, HP, in Civil Suit No.188/23/12. 2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter in this judgment, the parties shall be referred in the same manner in which they were referred before learned trial Court. The facts material and relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are that the plaintiff's case, in brief, is that the defendant, a construction contractor, borrowed a total sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- from him. To repay this debt, the defendant issued a cheque bearing No. TKN 986182, dated 30.08.2011, for Rs. 4,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff presented this cheque for 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 encashment on 07.10.2011, but it was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Following the dishonour, the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 13.10.2011 to the defendant, demanding payment. The defendant sent a reply dated 29.10.2011, which the plaintiff alleges was false and vague. The plaintiff further contended that he, along with his father and another individual, approached the defendant on several occasions, and the defendant assured him of payment after receiving funds from the government, thereby delaying the filing of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The defendant contested the suit, denying that he had borrowed any money from the plaintiff. His defence was that the cheque in question was not issued to discharge a debt but was instead given to the plaintiff to purchase construction materials during a period when the defendant was confined to bed, and that the plaintiff had misused this cheque. The defendant also asserted that the plaintiff had deliberately not filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act because he knew the prosecution would be false. The defendant raised issues regarding the cause of action, valuation of the suit, and proper verification of the plaint. In his replication, the plaintiff controverted contentions of defendant and reiterated his stand taken in the plaint. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial court on 30.08.2013:- 3 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 3. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee, as alleged? OPD 4. Whether the plaint is not properly verified as required under Order 6 Rule 15 CPC, as alleged? OPD 5. Relief? 5. The court decreed the suit of plaintiff, finding that the suit was based on a valid cause of action, was properly valued, and the plaint was correctly verified. 6. The defendant, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court. In the grounds of appeal, he contended that the trial court's judgment was against the factual and legal matrix of the case. He argued that the cheque was issued for the purpose of purchasing construction materials and not to discharge a debt. He pointed out discrepancies, such as the name on the cheque being "Rakash Kumar" while his bank account was in the name of "Rakesh Kumar," and that the cheque was from a cheque book issued much earlier, suggesting it was misused. He also contended that the trial court erred in not considering that the plaintiff failed to examine Sumna Devi, from whose account the loan amount was allegedly withdrawn, and in its appreciation of pleadings and the reply to the legal notice. 7. During the pendency of the appeal, the defendant moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC seeking to produce additional documents, including an 4 experience certificate, an MRI scan report, the reply to the legal notice, and bank passbooks. He claimed these documents had a direct bearing on the case and could not be produced earlier despite due diligence. The plaintiff resisted this application, arguing that the defendant had not provided a bona fide reason for not filing these documents during the trial and that allowing the application would amount to reopening the trial and cause prejudice. The first appellate court dismissed the application with costs and also dismissed the appeal; therefore, the present appeal has been preferred. 8. Heard counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments. 9. The foundational facts, as established through overwhelming evidence, are that the defendant, acknowledging a debt of Rs. 4,00,000/-, issued cheque bearing No. TKN 986182 dated 30.08.2011 in favour of the plaintiff. The presentation of this cheque, its dishonour due to "insufficiency of funds," and the subsequent service of a statutory demand notice dated 13.10.2011 upon the defendant, which received a reply but no payment, are facts substantiated by documentary evidence and crucial admissions of the defendant himself. These facts validly triggered the civil cause of action for recovery. 10. The learned trial Court correctly invoked the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which operate in favour of the holder of 5 a cheque that it was drawn for consideration and to discharge a legally enforceable debt or liability. The burden, therefore, shifted to the defendant to rebut this presumption by adducing cogent and convincing evidence. The defendant's defence, that the cheque was a blank cheque issued for the procurement of construction materials during a period of his alleged incapacity and was later misused by the plaintiff, was found to be inherently unreliable and unsubstantiated. This Court finds no error in this conclusion. The defendant's version was replete with material contradictions; while his reply to the legal notice claimed the cheque was handed over undated in April 2010, his testimony in court attempted to disown the very writing of the payee's name. Such vacillating stands fundamentally undermine the credibility of a witness. 11. Furthermore, the defendant's defence was not pleaded with the necessary particularity as required under Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A mere bald assertion of the cheque being obtained by "misrepresentation," without specifying the particulars of such misrepresentation, is insufficient in law to constitute a valid defence. The learned First Appellate Court rightly held that the contents of the reply to the legal notice could not be read as a substitute for proper pleadings in the written statement, and the defendant's attempt to lead evidence on an unleaded case was justifiably disregarded. 6 12. The defendant's application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for production of additional documents was also correctly dismissed. The principles governing the admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage, as crystallized in judicial precedent, are clear: it is permissible only if the party establishes that despite due diligence, such evidence could not be produced before the trial court, or that the court itself requires it to pronounce judgment. The documents sought to be produced an experience certificate, an MRI report, the reply to the legal notice, and bank passbooks were either already available with the defendant during trial or pertained to facts that had been extensively traversed during cross-examination. Allowing such an application would have amounted to permitting the defendant to fill up lacunae in his case, which is not the purpose of the provision. The cited case laws on this point were aptly applied. 13. Crucially, the defendant's contention that he was bedridden and incapable of managing his affairs during a specific period, and was thus compelled to entrust blank cheques to the plaintiff, was not only unsupported by conclusive medical evidence but was also directly contradicted by the plaintiff's testimony. The plaintiff stated that despite any alleged ailment, the defendant continued to visit his office and oversee work, an assertion which the defendant failed to effectively rebut. This factual finding by the courts below severely 7 undermines the foundational premise of the defendant's defence regarding the circumstances under which the cheque was allegedly issued. 14. The defendant's emphasis on minor discrepancies, such as the spelling of the plaintiff's name on the cheque as "Rakash Kumar" instead of "Rakesh Kumar," was rightly dismissed as inconsequential. The identity of the payee was never in genuine doubt, and the defendant himself admitted the cheque was intended for the plaintiff. This hyper-technical objection did not rebut the presumption of a legally enforceable debt 15. Significantly, the defendant failed to examine material witnesses who could have corroborated his alternate case, such as his other employees or the suppliers from whom the plaintiff allegedly purchased materials. This failure legitimately attracted an adverse inference against him under the illustration (g) to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Conversely, the plaintiff's financial capacity to lend the money was sufficiently established through his testimony regarding his agricultural income and landholding. 16. In light of the foregoing, the conclusions of the courts below that the plaintiff successfully proved the existence of a debt, the issuance of the cheque towards its repayment, its dishonour, and the failure of the defendant to liquidate the liability are unexceptionable findings of fact based on a correct appreciation of evidence and the proper application of legal 8 principles. The impugned judgment and decree decreeing the suit are, therefore, affirmed. 17. 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) Judge 13th November, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat/TB)