Samayawardhena, J.

I have had the advantage of reading the draft judgment of my learned brother, Justice Gooneratne. However, I regret that I am unable to agree with it.

The plaintiff instituted this action against the defendant in the District Court of Kantale seeking to recover a sum of Rs. 200,000 together with legal interest from the date of demand, as prayed for in the plaint. According to the plaint, the said sum was lent to the defendant on 27.08.2007 upon an oral agreement that it be repaid within six months, and the defendant issued cheque marked P1 as security for repayment. The defendant, in my view, filed a convoluted answer, seeking dismissal of the plaintiff’s action together with a cross-claim of Rs. 10 million as damages for alleged malicious prosecution, mental agony, loss of reputation etc.

The defendant’s case was that it was not the plaintiff, but he, who had lent a sum of Rs. 200,000 to the plaintiff by cheque P1. However, it is significant to note that the defendant did not make a cross-claim to recover that sum, although he sought to recover Rs. 10 million under various other heads, which are unsustainable in law. This in itself demonstrates how improbable the d