There is no reason for arriving at this finding. The appellate court also held that the evidence of the defendant is highly improbable. This finding was arrived at on the basis that the cheque book and pass book were allegedly put on a particular table which was having a drawer and instead of keeping the same inside the drawer of the table, the defendant kept the cheque book on the table in a careless manner. The defendant being an Assistant Engineer in the Electricity Board, such a conduct cannot be believed, the court held. It was also held that the defendant did not prove that he informed the Bank about the loss of the cheque leaves. The appellate court erroneously thought that in the chief examination and cross examination of P.W.1, she stated that the cheque was issued on the same date on which the amount was advanced and she changed the version only when the court put a question to her. This is clearly wrong. As stated above, there are three versions; one in the chief examination, another in the cross examination and third one when the court put a question to P.W.1. At the appellate stage, the appellant/plaintiff produced certain documents as additional evidence to prove that the cheque was dis-honoured not on the ground of closure of the account. The court below did not accept those documents . The request for a remand of the case to the trial court to adduce evidence and to produce additional documents was also negatived.
