- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13469 CRL.A No. 904 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 903 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 904 OF 2017 (A) C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 903 OF 2017 IN CRL.A No. 904/2017 BETWEEN: B. B. SIDDEGOWDA S/O. BHADREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O. BETTADAMALALLI VILLAGE, AVATHI POST AND HOBALI, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. YASHWANTH M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE .,ADVOCATE) AND: RATHNAMMA W/O. SOMASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O. KANATHI VILLAGE AND POST, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K N MOHAN.,ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.04.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13469 CRL.A No. 904 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 903 of 2017 CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.164/2016 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I.ACT AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.03.2016 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., CHIKKAMAGALURU IN C.C.NO.723/2013. IN CRL.A NO. 903/2017 BETWEEN: B. B. ANNEGOWDA S/O. BHADREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O. KANATHI VILLAGE AND POST, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 101. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. YASHWANTH M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE .,ADVOCATE) AND: RATHNAMMA W/O. SOMASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O. KANATHI VILLAGE AND POST, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 101. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.N. MOHAN .,ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.04.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.163/2016 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I.ACT AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.03.2016 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., CHIKKAMAGALURU IN C.C.NO.921/2013. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13469 CRL.A No. 904 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 903 of 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT Appeal in Crl.A.No.903/2017 is filed by one B.B.Annegowda, S/o Bhadregowda, complainant being aggrieved by the order dated 03.04.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.163/2016 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, (hereinafter referred to as First Appellate Court) by which, the First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent /accused. Consequently, set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed in C.C.No.921/2013 dated 08.03.2016 on the 2nd Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagalur (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court'). 2. Appeal in Crl.A.No.904/2017 is filed by one B.B.Siddegowda, S/o Badregowda, complainant being aggrieved by the order dated 03.04.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.164/2016 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagalur, (hereinafter referred to as First Appellate Court), by which the First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent /accused. Consequently set - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13469 CRL.A No. 904 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 903 of 2017 aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 08.03.2016 passed in CC No.723/2013 on the 2nd Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagalur (hereinafter referred to as trial Court). Brief facts of the case in Crl.A.No.903/2017: 3. That appellant- B.B.Annegowda has filed a private complaint in PCR No.257/2013 against accused/respondent under Section 200 of Cr.PC contending inter alia that accused/respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs.70,000/- from him for her urgent necessity as hand loan and towards the repayment of the said loan amount, she has issued a cheque bearing No.0436505 dated 29.12.2012 for Rs.70,000/- drawn on Chikkamagaluru Kodagu Grameena Bank (Kaveri Grameena Bank), Kanathi Branch. That on presentation of the said cheque for encashment to the said Bank, the same was returned with an endorsement dated 12.02.2013 as "Funds Insufficient". That the complainant/ appellant had issued a legal notice on 16.02.2013 to the accused/respondent through registered postal acknowledgment due which was received by accused/respondent on 22.02.2013. That despite receipt of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13469 CRL.A No. 904 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 903 of 2017 notice, she has not made the payment of the cheque amount as demanded. Consequently, filed the complaint. On recording sworn statement the said private complaint was numbered as C.C. No.921/2013. 4. The complainant has examined himself as PW1 and has produced 4 documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. Ex.P1 is the cheque, Ex.P1(a) is the signature of the accused/respondent. Ex.P2 is the endorsement issued by the Bank. Ex.P3 is the office copy of the notice. Ex.P4 is the postal acknowledgment. 5. Accused/respondent has examined herself as DW.1 and she has produced 10 documents marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D10. In furtherance of her defence, she has also examined one Sri.Shyam Sundar- DW.2 who is the Manager of Kaveri Grameena Bank, who has deposed that the said cheque has been issued prior to the year 2002. DW.3 is C.E.Krishne Gowda who is the member of Committee of a temple, Doddamagaravalli Rajadevathe Devasthan Trust who has spoken about the accused/respondent making application - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13469 CRL.A No. 904 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 903 of 2017 seeking their involvement to resolve the matter between the complainant /appellant and herself. 6. The trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Being aggrieved by the same, she has filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.163/2016 which was allowed by the judgment and order. Hence, the appeal in Crl.A.No.903/2017. Brief facts of the case in Crl.A.No.904/2017: 7. That appellant- B.B.Siddegowda has filed a private complaint in PCR No.171/2013 against accused/respondent under Section 200 of Cr.PC contending inter alia that accused/respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs.80,000/- from him for her urgent necessity as hand loan and towards the repayment of the said loan amount, she has issued a cheque bearing No.444657 dated 05.11.2012 for Rs.80,000/- drawn on Chikkamagaluru Kodagu Grameena Bank (Kaveri Grameena Bank), Kanathi Branch. That on presentation of the said cheque for encashment to the said Bank, the same was returned with an endorsement dated 31.01.2013 as "Funds Insufficient". That the complainant/ appellant had issued a legal - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13469 CRL.A No. 904 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 903 of 2017 notice on 05.12.2013 to the accused/respondent through registered postal acknowledgment due which was received by accused/respondent on 07.02.2013. That despite receipt of notice, she has not made the payment of the cheque amount as demanded. Consequently, filed the complaint. On recording sworn statement the said private complaint was numbered as C.C. No.723/2013. 8. The complainant has examined himself as PW1 and has produced 6 documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. Ex.P1 is the cheque, Ex.P1(a) is the signature of the accused/respondent. Ex.P2 is the endorsement issued by the Bank. Ex.P3 is the office copy of the notice. Ex.P4 is the postal acknowledgment. Ex.P5 is postal receipt and Ex.P6 is bank challan. 9. Accused/respondent has examined herself as DW.1. In furtherance of her defence, she has also examined one Sri.Shyam Sundar- DW.2 who is the Manager of Kaveri Grameena Bank, who has deposed that the said cheque has been issued prior to the year 2002. C.E.Krishne Gowda DW.3 who is the member of Committee of a temple, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13469 CRL.A No. 904 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 903 of 2017 Doddamagaravalli Rajadevathe Devasthan Trust who has spoken about the accused/respondent making application seeking their involvement to resolve the matter between the complainant /appellant and herself. 10. The trial Court convicted the accused the for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Being aggrieved by the same she has filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.164/2016 which was allowed by the judgment and order. Hence, the appeal in Crl.A.No.904/2017. 11. Since these two appeals are by the brothers against a common accused-respondent and the accused -respondent has raised common defence, both are taken up together for analogous disposal. 12. Sri. Yashwanth M, learned counsel appearing for Sri. Girish B Baladare, for appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeals submits; (a) that once the complainants/appellants have discharged the initial burden of accused/respondent issuing the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13469 CRL.A No. 904 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 903 of 2017 cheque in question towards discharge of liability duly signed by the accused/respondent, the onus shifts on to the accused/respondent to rebut the said presumption. In the instant case, there is no dispute with regard to issuance of cheque in question by accused/respondent so also her signature found thereon. (b) that though defence is set up by the accused/respondent with regard to Sri. B.B.Annegowda- appellant herein having lent a sum of Rs.10,000/- in the year 1997 same has not been proved by accused/respondent in the manner know to law to constitute a cogent rebuttal of the presumption or otherwise available to the complainant/ appellant. (c) He relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/S KALAMANI TEX AND ANOTHER VS. P BALASUBRAMANIAN in Crl.A.No.123/2021 in support of his submission of requirement of discharge of initial burden on the complainant which in turn results in shifting of the onus on the accused/respondent. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13469 CRL.A No. 904 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 903 of 2017 (d) Thus, he submits that the accused/respondent not having disputed the issuance of cheque or her signature found thereon and she not being able to rebut the legal presumption available to the complainant/appellant, trial Court was justified in convicting the accused/respondent and sentencing her to pay the fine amount and to undergo imprisonment in default which ought not to have been interfered with the First Appellant Court. Hence, seeks for allowing of the appeals. 13. Per contra, Sri.K.N.Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the accused/respondent submitted; (a) that the complainants/appellants herein have not whispered about the date on which the alleged loan transaction took place between him and the accused. He has merely stated about issuance of cheque which is though not denied, by the accused but she has given oral documentary evidence of herself and also independent witnesses which meets the requirement of rebuttal of the presumption which is available to the complainants /appellants. (b) that initial burden discharged by the complainants /appellants has been duly rebutted which fact had been lost - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13469 CRL.A No. 904 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 903 of 2017 sight of by the trial Court and has rightly taken into consideration by the First Appellate Court. Therefore, he submits that complainants/appellants have not made grounds warranting interference. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the appeals. 14. Heard. Perused the records. 15. Point for consideration is; "Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in allowing the appeals filed by the accused- respondent in Crl.A.No.163/2016 and in Crl.A.No.164/2016 setting aside the judgment of conviction passed in C.C.No.921/2013 and C.C.No.723/2013 respectively?". 16. Complainants B.B.Annegowda and B.B.Siddegowda are admittedly brothers. It is their common case that they had lent sum of Rs.70,000/- and Rs.80000/- respectively to the accused-respondent who had issued the subject cheque towards discharge of said liability. 17. Neither in the notice nor in the complaint nor even in the evidence said complainants have given the date on which they had lent the loan. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13469 CRL.A No. 904 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 903 of 2017 18. Accused-respondent has taken up common specific defence in both the cases which are as under; (a) that accused/respondent had sold her land to one Sri.Shivarame Gowda. That said Shivarame Gowda in turn had sold the said land to Sri. B.B.Annegowda the complainant in CC No.921/2013 (subject matter of appeal Crl.A.No.903/2017) which is admitted. (b) It is also suggested that prior to the said transaction of purchase, complainants/appellants and accused/respondent have financial transaction which is denied. (c) It is also suggested that cheques in question were issued prior to the year 2000 and the same has been misused by both B.B.Annegowda and B.B.Siddegowda, complainants/appellants. Thus, the transaction as alleged by the complainants /appellants have been denied. (d) In C.C.No.921/2013 the accused/respondent has examined herself as DW.1 and she has produced 10 documents marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D10. In furtherance of her defence, she has also examined one Sri.Shyam Sundar- DW.2 who is the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13469 CRL.A No. 904 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 903 of 2017 Manager of Kaveri Grameena Bank, who has deposed that the said cheque has been issued prior to the year 2002. DW.3 is C.E.Krishne Gowda who is the member of Committee of a temple, Doddamagaravalli Rajadevathe Devasthan Trust who has spoken about the accused/respondent making application seeking their involvement to resolve the matter between the complainants/appellants and herself. (e) In C.C.No.723/2013 the accused/respondent has examined herself as DW.1 as well as the aforesaid two witness namely, Sri.Shyam Sundar- DW.2 and C.E.Krishnegowda- DW.3. (f) The trial Court however accepting the case of the complainants/appellants declined to accept the defence of the accused/respondent and consequently convicted and sentenced the accused to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- and Rs.80,000/- respectively in the said cases in C.C.No.921/2013 and C.C.No.723/2013. Being aggrieved by the same, accused/ respondent has preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.163/2016 and Crl.A.No.164/2016. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13469 CRL.A No. 904 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 903 of 2017 19. The First Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration; "1. Whether the appellant/accused has rebutted the presumption attached to Ex.P1 under Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act?. 2. Whether the trial Court has committed any error of law or fact and interference by this Court in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court is necessary? 3. What order?" and on reappreciation of evidence answered the point Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative. The First Appellate Court found the defence raised by the accused/respondent was sufficient enough to rebut the statutory presumption available in favour of the complainants/appellants and accordingly, allowed the appeals by setting aside the order of the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, they are before this Court. 20. Issuance of cheque at Ex.P1 and signature found thereon is not disputed by the accused/respondent herein. That alone though may be read as giving raise to statutory presumption in favour the complainants /appellants, the complainants are also required to give the basic details of the transactions which have taken place. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13469 CRL.A No. 904 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 903 of 2017 21. Perusal of the complaint in PCR No.257/2013 at para 2 reads as under; "2. The accused borrowed a sum of Rs.70,000/- from the complainant as hand loan for her urgent family necessity and for repayment of the said amount the accused had issued a cheque bearing No.0436505 dated 29.12.2012 Kodagu Grameena Bank, Kanathi branch in favour of the complainant………." 22. Perusal of the complaint in PCR No.171/2013 at para 2 reads as under; "2. The accused borrowed a sum of Rs.80,000/- from the complainant as hand loan for her urgent family necessity and for repayment of the said amount the accused had issued a cheque bearing No.0444657 dated 05.11.2012 for Rs.80,000/- drawn on Chikamagaluru Kodagu Grameena Bank, Kanathi branch in favour of the complainant………." 23. Thus, except the above averments there is nothing on record to show that the date on which the said loan transactions had taken place. Though the said averment is followed by the subsequent averment of said cheques having been returned for "want of sufficient funds" from the bank and the complainants /appellants having issued the notices and duly received by the accused, accused-respondent has set up a formidable defence in the nature of loan transactions that had - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13469 CRL.A No. 904 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 903 of 2017 taken place between the complainants/appellants and accused/respondent prior to the year 1997. 24. 24. It is her specific case that she has borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from B.B.Annegowda in the year 1997 and the said cheque along with another cheque was taken by the B.B.Annegowda at the time of said transaction. It is her specific case that said amount has been re-paid. As such, there was no due payable by her. That the said cheques have now been misused by both B.B.Annegowda and B.B.Siddegowda. 25. She also set up the defence that she was the owner of certain immovable property which is sold in favour of Shivaramegowda in the year 2001-02 and said Shivaramegowda in turn had sold the said land in favour of B.B.Annegowda-complainant/appellant. The said sale transaction has been admitted by the B.B.Annegowda- complainant/appellant. 26. She has also produced documents namely, Ex.D1 to Ex.D5 which are RTC extracts. She has produced documents at Ex.D6 which is a transaction between accused, - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13469 CRL.A No. 904 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 903 of 2017 Shivaramegowda and B.B.Annegowda, the complainants/ appellants in Ex.No.124/2011. She also produced Ex.D7 which appears to be a settlement arrived at with respect to property transaction in which the complainant /appellant is also a party, wherein he has admitted there being no due. Ex.D8 is an agreement of sale between Shivaramegowda and B.B.Annegowda- complainants/appellants. In terms of which, he agreed to sell the property to the complainant /appellant for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- of which she has admitted receipt of Rs.70,000/-. Ex.D9 is a copy of the notice issued to one I.D. Rudregowda on behalf of the complainant/appellant with regard to certain transaction. 27. Thus, accused/respondent has not only set up defence in both the cases, but also led the evidence to prove the financial transactions which she had with B.B.Annegowda and also property transaction which she has had with one Shivaramegowda, who in turn had sold the property of the accused/respondent to the very B.B.Annegowda. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13469 CRL.A No. 904 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 903 of 2017 28. It is also necessary to note Ex.P1 in C.C.No.921/2013 as well as Ex.P1 in C.C.No.723/2013, which are the cheques drawn on the name of Chikkamagaluru Kodagu Grameena Bank. The printed date found on said cheques indicate that same are for the period "…19". 29. The cheque subject matter of C.C.No.921/2013 as presented is over written by scoring off the numbers "….19" and showing it as "29/12/2012. 30. Similarly, the cheque subject matter of C.C.No.723/2013 as presented is over written by scoring off the numbers "….19" and showing it as "05/11/2012. 31. This probabilizes the fact of the defence set up by the accused/respondent of the said cheques having been issued in the year 1997. The evidence led in by the accused/ respondent corroborated by evidence of DW.2 who is the Bank official regarding said cheque book having been issued prior to the year 2000. 32. As rightly held by the First Appellate Court the contention of the accused /respondent that the cheques were - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13469 CRL.A No. 904 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 903 of 2017 issued prior to 1997 and the same having been misused by the both B.B.Annegowda and B.B.Siddegowda who had also filed similar complaints stand proved. The appreciation of evidence and conclusion arrived at by the First Appellate Court cannot be therefore found fault with. 33. The Apex Court in the case of Vijay Vs Laxman and anr. reported in (2013) 3 SCC 86, in a case involving identical fact situation of the matter, at paragraph 27 has held as under: "27. Coming then to the present case, the absence of any details of the date on which the loan was advanced as also the absence of any documentary or other evidence to show that any such loan transaction had indeed taken place between the parties is a significant circumstance. So also the fact that the cheque was presented on the day following the altercation between the parties is a circumstance that cannot be brushed away. The version of the respondent that the cheque was not returned to him and the complainant presented the same to wreak vengeance against him is a circumstance that cannot be easily rejected. Superadded to all this is the testimony of DW 1, Jeevan Guru according to whom the accounts were settled between the father of the complainant and the accused in his presence and upon settlement the accused had demanded return of his cheque given in lieu of the advance. It was further stated by the witness that the complainant's father had avoided to return the cheque and promised to do so on some other day. There is no reason much less a cogent one suggested to us for rejecting the deposition of this witness who has testified that after the incident of altercation between the two parties the accused has been supplying milk to the witness as he is also in the same business. The non- examination of the father of the complainant who was said to be present outside the court hall on the date the - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13469 CRL.A No. 904 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 903 of 2017 complainant's statement was recorded also assumes importance. It gives rise to an inference that the non- examination was a deliberate attempt of the prosecution to keep him away from the court for otherwise he would have to accept that the accused was actually supplying milk to him and that the accused was given the price of the milk in advance as per the trade practice in acknowledgment and by way of security for which amount the accused had issued a cheque in question." 34. Similarly, in the case of Basalingappa Vs Mudibasappa reported in (2019) 5 SCC 418 at paragraphs 28 and 29 the Apex Court has held as under: 28. There is one more aspect of the matter which also needs to be noticed. In the complaint filed by the complainant as well as in examination-in-chief the complainant has not mentioned as to on which date, the loan of Rs.6 lakhs was given to the accused. It was during cross-examination, he gave the date as November 2011. Under Section 118(b), a presumption shall be made as to date that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn on such date. Admittedly, the cheque is dated 27-2-2012, there is not even a suggestion by the complainant that a post-dated cheque was given to him in November 2011 bearing the date 27-2-2012. Giving of a cheque on 27-2- 2012, which was deposited on 1-3-2012 is not compatible with the case of the complainant when we read the complaint submitted by the complainant especially para 1 of the complaint, which is extracted as below: “1. The accused is a very good friend of the complainant. The accused requested the complainant a hand loan to meet out urgent and family necessary a sum of Rs 6,00,000 (Rupees Six lakhs) and on account of long standing friendship and knowing the difficulties, which is being faced by the accused the complainant agreed to lent hand loan to meet out the financial difficulties of the accused and accordingly the complainant lent hand loan Rs 6,00,000 (Rupees Six lakhs) dated 27-2-2012 in favour of the complainant stating that on its presentation it will be honoured. But to - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13469 CRL.A No. 904 of 2017 C/W CRL.A No. 903 of 2017 the surprise of the complainant on presentation of the same for collection through his bank the cheque was returned by the bank with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient” on 1-3-2012.” 29. Thus, there is a contradiction in what was initially stated by the complainant in the complaint and in his examination-in-chief regarding date on which loan was given on one side and what was said in cross-examination in other side, which has not been satisfactorily explained. The High Court was unduly influenced by the fact that the accused did not reply to the notice denying the execution of cheque or legal liability. Even before the trial court, appellant-accused has not denied his signature on the cheque." 35. The accused-respondent having rebutted the presumption by leading cogent evidence and the complainants/appellants having failed to discharge their burden, this Court do not see any error or irregularity in the orders passed by the First Appellate Court setting aside the orders of the trial Court. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31