( 1 ) THE unsuccessful plaintiff in O. S. No. 180/85 on the file of I Additional subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam is the appellant and the defendant is the respondent.

( 2 ) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as "plaintiff" and "defendant", as arrayed in the original suit.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of amount. The allegations made in the plaint are as follows: the plaintiff and defendant are contractors as they were doing contracts under the Urban Development Authority. Their works are adjacent to each other. At the request of the defendant, the plaintiff advanced monies to the defendant from 1983 and a total sum of Rs. 3,35,150. 00 was given by the plaintiff to the defendant from time to time. The defendant was making part-payment. After striking the balance, a sum of Rs. 2,09,250. 00 was found due by 21-3-1985 and the defendant gave a cheque for Rs. 79,250. 00 on 21-3-1985 and the same was realised from the Bank and again on 23-3-1985 the defendant gave another cheque for the balance of Rs. 1,30,000. 00 and when the plaintiff presented a cheque at the bank, it was dishonoured. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of rs. 1,30,000/- with interest at 18% per annum.

( 4 ) IN the written statement it was pleaded that the plaint averments are incorrect. It was also pleaded that this defendant did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff. There is no necessity for the defendant to borrow any amount. The plaintiff has no capacity to lend money. The defendant and the plaintiff did contract work jointly of VUDA and the plaintiff used to look after the contract work. For the purpose of that contract work, the defendant gave singed cheques to the plaintiff and the plaintiff used to draw the amounts by using the cheques. Except that, there is no debt due to the plaintiff by the defendant. The plaintiff, taking advantage of the signed cheques with him, foisted this case and filed this false case. The plaintiff filled up the cheques signed by the defendant and filed this suit. The plaintiff has to pay the amount to this defendant in the contract work. Hence this suit is to be dismissed with costs.

( 5 ) THE trial Court had settled the following issues. (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for? (2) To what relief?

( 6 ) THE plaintiff was examined as P. W. 1 and the defendant was examined as D. W. 1 exs. A-1 to A-12 and also Exs. X-1 and X-2 were marked. The trial Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was unable to establish the claim and ultimately had dismissed the suit with costs, and aggrieved by the same the present Appeal is filed.

( 7 ) SRI Rajasekhar, the learned counsel representing the appellant/plaintiff with all vehemence had contended that despite the fact that there is clear evidence available in record establishing the claim of the plaintiff, by adopting an erroneous approach, the trial court has dismissed the suit. The learned counsel further contended that the trial Court was under the impression that the suit is based on Ex. A-1, but it is not so. The learned counsel also had explained in detail about ex. A-7, the account book and the entries made therein and also the relevancy of the said entries. The learned counsel further maintained that Ex. A-7 read along with exs. A-11, A-12, X-1 and X-2 clearly establish the existence of the debt and the relationship of the creditor and debtor between the parties and this aspect was not appreciated by the trial Court in is proper perspective. The learned counsel also further contended that the account book ex. A-7 is the one maintained in the ordinary course of business and definitely the same is relevant. Apart from this aspect of the matter, inasmuch as Ex. A-2 cheque had been issued and it is not in dispute at all, that itself can be taken as acknowledgment of debt even in view of Section