IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.146/2024 Date of Decision: 12th November, 2025. Amarjit Singh .....Appellant Versus Kewal Singh. …..Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Hitesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Ranta, Advocate. 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 19.07.2023, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nalagarh, District Nalagarh, HP in Civil Appeal No.22-NL/13 of 2022, affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2021, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, HP, in Civil Suit No.271/1 of 2015. 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 instituted the suit for the recovery of ₹11,25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. The case as set out in the plaint was that the plaintiff and defendant Amarjit Singh shared a friendly relationship. The 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 defendant, who runs a business under the name and style of M/s Punjab Trading Company as its sole proprietor, borrowed the suit amount from the plaintiff on 15.04.2015 to assist with his business and domestic requirements, promising to repay it within one month. When the plaintiff approached the defendant for repayment on 12.08.2015, the defendant issued a cheque bearing No. 630855 dated 12.08.2015 drawn on Canara Bank for the suit amount. 3. The plaintiff subsequently presented this cheque at his bank, State Bank of Patiala, on 14.08.2015, but it was dishonoured on the grounds that the signatures on the cheque did not match the specimen signatures held by the bank. Following the dishonour, the plaintiff made repeated requests for payment and eventually got a legal notice dated 24.08.2015 issued to the defendant, demanding repayment of the amount with interest within 15 days, which yielded no result. The plaintiff asserted that the cause of action arose on 15.04.2015, 12.08.2015, and 24.08.2015, and prayed for a decree in his favour. 4. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement, raising preliminary objections regarding the absence of a cause of action, the plaintiff's locus standi, estoppel, and alleging that the plaintiff had not approached the court with clean hands. The defendant categorically denied having 3 borrowed the amount of ₹11,25,000/- for business or domestic purposes and disclaimed any legal liability towards the plaintiff. 5. The defendant's case was that during 2012-13, he was in need of coal for his brick kiln and the plaintiff had agreed to supply it, taking two blank cheques from the defendant as security for the proposed supply. The plaintiff, however, failed to supply the coal, leading the defendant to cancel the deal and subsequently stop payment on the cheques. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff, taking undue advantage of this prior transaction, had now filed the present suit based on one of those blank cheques. The defendant also denied receiving any legal notice from the plaintiff and contended that the plaintiff had no cause of action to maintain the suit, praying for its dismissal. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial court on 21.04.2017:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of suit amount alongwith interest , as prayed for ?..OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged?..OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit against the defendants?..OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his own act, conduct and acquiescence?..OPD 5. Relief. 7. After both parties led their evidence and arguments were heard, the trial court proceeded to decree the suit. 4 8. The appellant, feeling aggrieved by the trial court's judgment and decree, preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The arguments raised before the First Appellate Court reiterated the defendant's version of events, specifically the aborted coal supply deal from 2012-13 and the issuance of two blank cheques as security. It was contended that the learned trial court had failed to appreciate the facts and the law in their correct perspective. The appellant argued that the findings of the trial court were arbitrary, fanciful, erroneous, capricious, and based on surmises and conjectures, rendering the judgment unsustainable. On these grounds, the appellant prayed for the appeal to be allowed and the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court to be set aside. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal therefore the present second appeal was preferred. 9. Heard Counsels for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. 10. The core issue for determination revolves around the plaintiff's claim for recovery of a loan of ₹11,25,000/- and the defendant's liability thereon, which is substantiated by a cheque whose execution is admitted. 11. The foundational pillar of the plaintiff's case is fortified by the statutory presumption enshrined in Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The defendant's unequivocal admission that the cheque, Exhibit C1, was issued from his 5 bank account and bears his signatures, conclusively establishes its execution. This admission triggers a mandatory presumption in law that the instrument was drawn for a valid consideration. The legal onus thus shifted decisively onto the defendant to adduce cogent and convincing evidence to rebut this presumption. 12. The defendant has failed to discharge this formidable burden. His defence rests on an alternative narrative that the cheque was one of two blank instruments provided as security for a purported coal supply agreement in 2012-13, a deal which was subsequently cancelled, leading him to issue stop-payment instructions. This narrative is fundamentally flawed and evidentially bankrupt. Most critically, the defendant has conspicuously failed to specifically deny the plaintiff's averment that the cheque was dishonoured for the reason "drawers signatures differed." This specific plea of the plaintiff, left unchallenged in the written statement, must be deemed to have been admitted by the defendant in accordance with settled principles of civil procedure. 13. The defendant's version is further dismantled by his failure to produce the best evidence that was uniquely within his possession. If his assertion that he instructed his bank to stop payment in 2012-13 were true, the bank records reflecting such an instruction would have been the most clinching evidence to prove that the cheque was stale and not issued in 2015 as 6 claimed by the plaintiff. The non-production of these vital records invites an adverse inference against the defendant under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Similarly, his claim that he sent a notice to the plaintiff demanding the return of the cheques is rendered incredible by his failure to produce a copy of such a notice, despite claiming it was available with him. 14. The oral evidence presented by the plaintiff is consistent, credible, and withstands cross-examination. The plaintiff, Kewal Singh (PW1), provided a coherent account of lending the amount in cash, detailing the denominations of the currency notes, and doing so in the presence of his witness, Sukhdev (PW2). The testimony of Sukhdev (PW2) corroborates the plaintiff's version in all material particulars regarding the transaction of 15.04.2015. 15. While minor inconsistencies emerged in PW2's testimony regarding an unrelated lease of a brick kiln, these do not in any manner impeach the core evidence pertaining to the loan and the issuance of the cheque for its repayment. The defendant's belated and unsupported attempt to introduce a partnership theory was rightly discarded by the trial court, as it was not substantiated by any documentary evidence such as a partnership deed or proof of purchase of shares, and was not even suggested to the plaintiff's witness during cross- examination. 7 16. The conduct of the defendant also militates against the bona fides of his defence. His failure to respond to the plaintiff's legal notice, Exhibit P2, which explicitly demanded the repayment of the loan, is telling. The defendant admitted that the address on the notice was correct and that he received court summons at that very address. In such circumstances, the presumption of due service of the notice arises, and his silence in the face of a substantial financial demand is antithetical to the conduct of an innocent party. 17. In conclusion, the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remains wholly unrebutted. The plaintiff has successfully proved the loan transaction and the issuance of the cheque in discharge of that liability. The defendant's defence has been found to be an afterthought, lacking in evidentiary support and credibility. The learned trial court committed no error in decreeing the suit. 18. 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 12th November, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat/TB)