The main legal point established in the judgment is that self-serving averments without proof cannot be believed, and additional evidence presented must be sufficient to prove the claims made.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

C.M. Appl. No. 31601/2018 (for exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

C.M. stands disposed of.

C.M. Appl. No. 31650/2018 (for delay)

2. For the reason stated in the application the delays of 11 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned, subject to just exceptions.

C.Ms. stand disposed of.

RFA No. 633/2018 and C.M. Appl. Nos. 31599-31600/2018

3. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 1.3.2018 by which the trial court has decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 7,75,000/- along with interest at 6% per annum on account of the appellant/defendant failing to repay the loan of Rs. 7,75,000/- advanced by the respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant.

4. The respondent/plaintiff pleaded that he granted a loan of Rs.7,75,000/- to the appellant/defendant by means of four cheques as stated in paragraph 4 of the plaint as under:-

S.No.	Date	Mode of Payment	Amount
1.	28.05.2009	By way of Cheque bearing no. 404639	1,25,000.00
2.	12.10.2009	By way of Cheque bearing no. 348929	5,00,000.00
3.	20.02.2010	By way of Cheque bearing no. 348946	50,000.00
4.	26.02.2010	By way of RTGS 728578	1,00,000.00

5. It was pleaded that since the appellant/defendant failed to repay the amount hence the subject suit was filed.

6. Appellant/defendant contested the suit and did not dispute the receipt of amount of Rs.7,75,000/- but claimed that the appellant/defendant is entitled to adjustment on account of the appellant/defendant having supplied to the respondent/plaintiff vastu services/astrology services, gems and precious stones and also apples which were purchased by the respondent/plaintiff from the appellant/defendant. Suit was accordingly prayed to be dismissed.

7. After pleadings were complete, the trial court framed the following issues:-

(“a) Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit? OPD

(b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.13,22,466/- as prayed? OPP

(c) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest @ 24% per annum as prayed? OPP

(d) Relief.”

8. Trial court has dismissed the suit by holding that the appellant/defendant failed completely to prove that any vastu services were provided or that the appellant/defendant supplied any gem stones to the respondent/plaintiff or that the appellant/defendant supplied any apples to the respondent/plaintiff. These aspect are discussed in paragraphs 7.4.b to 7.4.e of the impugned judgment and these paragraphs read as under:-

(“b) The defendant has also failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that he provided consultancy services with respect to vastu to the plaintiff in or around the period when he received the payments from the plaintiff in 2009 and 2010. Specific question was put to the witness whether he had raised any invoice with respect to the service supplied by him to the plaintiff, to which he testified as under:-

“I am paying income tax as Vastu Consultant as main income source. I do not remember how much was assessed as income in the year 2009-10 nut I can tell after seeing the record. I can produce the income tax return for the year 2009-10. Same is my answer with regard to year 2010-11. I maintain the books and records for Vastu Consultancy and Astrology pertaining to clients from the year approximately 2013. Before that, I was not maintaining any books or records for Vastu Consultancy and Astrology given to clients. I am giving bills to the clients for Vastu Consultancy and Astrology. In the year 2009-10, I used to issue bills for vastu consultancy or astrology to those clients who used t