9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1754X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by an affidavit. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 52 days in refiling the appeal, stands condoned. CM-7082-C-2015 Prayer in this application is for making good the deficiency in Court fee. In the application, it has been stated that inadvertently, less Court fee was affixed and on the Registry having pointed out the deficiency in not paying the required Court fee, requisite Court fee stamps were submitted/affixed and as of now, there is no deficiency in the Court fee. The application is supported by an affidavit. The present application is, therefore, allowed. The deficient Court fee is permitted to be made good. RSA-2927-2015 Challenge in this appeal is to the judgments and decree passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rded by the Courts below. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant-defendant and have gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below. It is correct that as per the assertion of the respondent- plaintiff, the amount was handed over to the appellant-defendant in January, 2001 but the fact remains that as per the case of the respondent-plaintiff, as the appellant-defendant failed to send his son abroad, he, in acknowledgment of his debt, has issued a cheque on 17.10.2007. As per the provision of Section 25 (3) of the Indian Contract Act, the suit which has been filed, cannot be said to be barred by limitation. The law in this regard has rightly been appreciated by the Courts below and applied. Reliance i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. That apart, the denial of the signatures by the appellant-defendant on the cheque also cannot be accepted as the respondent-plaintiff has been able to prove on the basis of the evidence and in fact, admission that the cheque book and cheque leaf were of the account of the appellant-defendant. Since the appellant-defendant had denied his signatures, the onus was on him to prove that the cheque did not bear his signature but unfortunately, he did not produce any expert evidence in support of this assertion of his. Further, the cheque has been returned by the bank not on the ground that the signature on the cheque is not of the appellant-defendant but because of insufficient funds. Signing and issuing cheque in favour of the respondent-pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
