complainant produced one of the cheque in June, 2016 in the bank for payment but it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. The complainant informed this to the accused then he issued another cheque no.083014 dated 18.07.2016, when this cheque was presented in the bank it was also dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds on 07.09.2016. It is further alleged that it was agreed in the SCC Suit that no rent will be paid without receipt but despite this payment of rent was made to the complainant without receipt and complainant not issued any receipt despite demand. The accused has paid the amount of all the three cheques in cash before the witnesses namely Bharat Yadav, Vijay Kumar and Shubrati Khan on different occasions. The complainant did not return the cheques despite demands, he manipulated the blank cheques given as security at the time of initiation of tenancy and presented it in the bank. The appellant has disclosed all these facts to his previous counsel and have also asked him to produce defence evidence in this respect but the previous counsel neither filed any document nor produced any witness before whom the cash amount was paid. In the appeal, another counsel was engaged then this fact came to his knowledge, it was prayed that documents annexed with the application be admitted in the evidence and the appellant be permitted to produce witnesses Bharat Yadav, Vijay Kumar in defence. The learned appellate court by the impugned order dated 05.09.2022 has partly allowed the application. The learned trial court has admitted the documentary evidence annexed with the application but for producing oral evidence, the learned appellate court has rejected the aforesaid application.
