JUDGMENT :

GOUTAM BHADURI, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 9-7-2019 passed by the Sixth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 55-B/2015 whereby a decree of Rs. 13,00,000/- has been passed against the defendant along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit with pleading, inter-alia, that the plaintiff and the defendant were friends and because of such relation an amount of Rs. 13,00,000/- was given as loan by the plaintiff to the defendant and in lieu thereof three cheques were given by the defendant vide cheque No. 218889 dated 8-9-2012 for Rs. 2,00,000/- (Ex.P/1); cheque No. 218888 dated 30-9-2012 for Rs. 8,00,000/- (Ex.P/2) and cheque No. 218957 dated 5-2-2013 for Rs. 3,00,000/- (Ex.P/3) to secure repayment. The amount since was not repaid, the plaintiff requested the defendant to make the payment, but it was not made and having enquired from the Bank, it was revealed that the defendant did not have sufficient funds in his account. Since for a considerable time the amount was not paid, eventually a civil suit was filed on the ground that he has advanced loan of Rs. 13,00,000/- to the defendant and in lieu thereof three cheques were given to the plaintiff by way of repayment to liquidate the loan. The plaintiff filed the suit claiming principal sum along with interest for recovery of such amount.

3. The defendant denied all the adverse allegations in the plaint and instead it was stated that no negotiation or loan transaction took place in between the parties and frivolous complaints were made to recover the amount from the defendant and even the date of loan was not mentioned. It was stated that the suit was based on false averments and, as such, the same may be dismissed.

4. The trial Court framed the issues with respect to the fact whether the loan was advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant and in lieu thereof the amount of Rs. 13,00,000/- whether was to be paid as per cheques. It was held in affirmative that the plaintiff was entitled for a decree of Rs. 13,00,000/- along with interest. Thus, this appeal.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant would submit that the suit was completely based on vague allegations and there is nothing on record to show that the loan was ever advanced to the defendant. He would further submit that though the suit was based on three cheques i.e. cheque No. 218889 dated 8-9-2012 for Rs. 2,00,000/- (Ex.P/1); cheque No. 218888 dated 30-9-2012 for Rs. 8,00,000/- (Ex.P/2) and cheque No. 218957 dated 5-2-2013 for Rs. 3,00,000/- (Ex.P/3) but they were never dishonoured. According to the learned counsel, the said cheques were not negotiated by the plaintiff to get a cause of action as the suit was based on the basis of cheques, which were alleged to be by way of repayment. He would also submit that nothing is on record to substantiate the fact that the loan was ever given to the defendant. It is stated that neither any income tax papers nor any supportive documents were placed to show the date of loan of Rs. 13,00,000/- which was said to have been initially advanced. Therefore, the trial Court has completely misdirected itself and decreed the suit on presumption on the basis of three cheques which were in hold of the plaintiff.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff, per contra, would submit that the statement of the plaintiff would categorically point out that the defendant has availed the loan and in lieu thereof for repayment of the same, three cheques were given. He would submit that on promise of the defendant, the cheques were not negotiated and the defendant who was a holder in due course held the cheque for security on a promise that the amount of loan would be re-paid, but eventually when the amount was not paid the suit was filed. He would submit that the conduct of the defendant by giving three cheques itself would show that he accepted the liability, therefore, the order o