KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.----The captioned appeal is directed again st judgment and decree dated 03.04.2015, passed by the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge. Hyderabad, whereby , Summary Suit No.03 of 2012. filed by respondent Somiyo Mir Behar for recovery of Rs.45.000/- against the appellant, was decreed as prayed.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that plaintif f Somiyo Mir Behar [who hereinafter will be referred to as the respondent] and the defendant Zahid Ahmed [who hereinafter will be referred to as the appellant] had friendly terms with each other . The appellant had obtained loan amounting to Rs.45,0 00/- from the respondent with assurance that he would return or repay the same to him within a month. The appellant had given post-dated cheque of Rs.45,000/= to the respondent which on its presentation in the concerned Bank, was dishonored for want of sufficient fund. The respondent lodged an FIR No.97 of 2010 at PS Market, Hyderabad for offence under section 489-F , P.P.C. against the appella nt, who after trial was convicted and sentenced to suffer SI for six (06) months vide judgment dated 31.01.201 1, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrat e-I Hyderabad in Criminal Case No.89 of 2010, emanating from the subject FIR, but he was acquitted in appeal vide judgment dated 19.09.201 1, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, allowing the Criminal Appeal No.06 of 2011, filed against the aforesaid judgment dated 31.01.201 1, passed by the trial Court. Then the respondent filed the subject summary suit for recovery of amount of Rs.45.000/= against the appellant, which after the evidence and hearing the parties was decreed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 03.04.2015. Hence this appeal.
3. It is, inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case based on the FIR lodged by the respondent, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay the amount shown in the subject cheque issued by him; and, that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper manner . Learned counsel prays that the matter may be remitted back to the trial Court for decision afresh on merits after reappraisa l of the evidence. The respondent, who is present in person, states that the appellant being on friendly terms with him, had obtained loan of Rs.45,000/= from him with an assurance of its repayment within a month, for which the appellant had issued the subject cheque to him; that he presented the subject cheque in the concerned Bank that was bounced; and that the learned trial Court after considering all the aspects of the case has decreed the suit filed by him. He prays that this appeal may be dismissed.
4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent in person and have gone through the material brought on record.
5. From a perusal of record it would be seen that undeniably the parties were on friendly terms with each other; the case of the respondent is that the appellant had obtained loan of Rs.45.00/ = from him and for repayment of the loan the appellant had issued him cheque dated 10.05.2009, has been substantiated by the respondent by examining himself at Ex.26 and producing cheque and its certified copy and so also some other cheque issued by the appellant to him. The appellant in his deposition has admitted that "I handed over two cheques to the plaintiff both the cheques are in my name and same bear my signatures". In view of such categorical admissions regarding issuance of cheques to the respondent, the burden was upon the appellant to prove that the subject cheque issued by him to the respondent was not for repayment of loan. The appellant has not uttered a single word as to why he had issued two cheques. The appellant has stated that the respondent had got Rs.2,00,000/= from him as loan and executed a promissory note, but in cross examination he admitted that "it is correct that I have not filed any case against the plaintiff on the basis of Exh. 28/A [promissory note]" Even otherwise, the stance taken by the appellant that respondent had obtained loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from him, does not appeal for the simple reason that if the loan was obtained by the respondent from the appellant then why the appellant had issued two cheques including the subject cheque to the respondent. I have also seen the judgment dated 19.09.201 1, passed by the learned appellate Court along with the criminal appeal filed against the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court, which would show that the ingredient for constituting the offence namely "dishonesty" in issuing the cheque was missing, therefore, the learned appellate Court acquitted the appellant.
Even otherwise, the acquittal of the appellant in criminal case on such ground of want of material ingredient of "dishonesty" in issuing the cheque for the constituting the offence under section 489-F , P.P.C., would not relieve the appellant of his liability to pay the amou nt of RS.45,000/- shown in the subject cheque, which was admittedly issued by him in favour of the responden t and was dishonored on its presentation due to insuf ficient funds. Thus the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the acquittal of the appellant in the criminal case, the appellant is not liable to pay the amount, shown in the subject cheque issued by him, being untenable is rejected.
6. In view of what has been stated above. I am of the considered view that impugned judgment and decree dated 03,04.2015, passed by the learned trial Court, which are apt to the facts and circumstances of D the case and Law, suffering from no illegality or any misreading and non-reading of evidence, do not call for any interference. The learned counsel for the appellant has also not been able to point out any illegality or any jurisdictional defect in the impugned Judgment and Decree, passed by the learned trial Court, calling for interference of this Court. And, thus this appeal having no any substance is liable to he dismissed. These are the reasons of short order announced by me on 17.04.2019, whereby , this appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.