The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to prove the transaction and the successful rebuttal of the presumption attached to the cheque by the defendant.

JUDGMENT

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. - A Civil Suit filed by the appellant against the respondent for recovery of Rs.4,08,000/- has been concurrently dismissed by both the learned Courts below. Hence, instant second appeal has been preferred.

2. Records of the case have been received. The appeal was admitted on following substantial questions of law:-

1. Once issuance of cheque is admitted, signatures thereon are not disputed and having regard to legal presumption under sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act, whether the findings of Ld. Courts below holding that plaintiff failed to prove the transaction between him and defendant are legally sustainable?

2. In the absence of specific evidence led by defendant qua maintainability of suit in terms of section 3 of Himachal Pradesh Registration of Money Lenders Act, Whether the findings of Ld. Court below holding that the suit is barred by section 3 of Himachal Pradesh Registration of Money Lender Act is legally sustainable?

With the consent of Learned Counsel for the parties, the present appeal was taken up for disposal. Parties hereinafter are being referred to as they were before the learned trial Court. Succinctly put, facts of the case are:-

2(i) Plaintiff pleaded that during the year 2006 he had advanced a loan amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lacs) to the defendant. The loan was advanced to enable the defendant to meet the expenses incurred on his marriage. In lieu of this loan, the defendant had handed him a post dated cheque No. 143009 dated 31.8.2006. Plaintiff presented the cheque on 18.9.2006 for encashment in the bank, however, it was returned with the remarks 'insufficient funds'. Subsequent requests of the plaintiff to the defendant for making the payment went in vain. The legal notice issued by the plaintiff in this regard on 12.10.2006 also did not yield the desired result. Hence, the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- principal amount alongwith interest of Rs.1,08,000/-was instituted.

2(ii) In his written statement, the defendant denied taking any loan from the plaintiff in the year 2006 much less loan of Rs.3,00,000/-. Defendant also denied having issued any post dated cheque in favour of plaintiff in the year 2006. The written statement was to the effect that there was no occasion for the defendant to obtain any loan from the plaintiff for meeting out his marriage expenses in the year 2006 as his marriage was solemnized in simple manner in the year 2003. It was also stated therein that in 2004 Shri Daulat Ram, father of the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff. Against this loan, a blank cheque signed by the defendant, which was lying in the house, was handed over by the defendant's father to the plaintiff as security. Entire borrowed amount was repaid by the father of the defendant to the plaintiff within a period of three months from the date of borrowing. Despite repeated demands, plaintiff did not return the blank cheque feigning excuse that the same was lost. However, with intention to illegally grab money from the defendant, the above mentioned cheque was mis-used by the plaintiff for instituting the civil suit. It was also submitted in the written statement that the plaintiff was a habitual litigant engaged in 42 civil and criminal proceedings against various persons for extorting money from them as his profession. A preliminary objection was also taken that plaintiff was not entitled to file the suit in view of provisions of The Himachal Pradesh Registration of Money Lenders' Act, 1976.

3. Evidence

3(i) Two witnesses in all were produced by the plaintiff in support of his claim including himself. Plaintiff appearing in the witness box as PW1 re-iterated his assertions in the plaint. During his cross-examination, plaintiff expressed his inability to disclose as to whether defendant's marriage had taken place in the year 2003 or not. Plaintiff also admitted in crossexamination that he had filed numerous cases in