first plea of the complainant is to allow him to mark certain additional documents like bank pass book etc., in order to prove his financial capacity. Sri.V.G.Arun, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent accused would submit that it has been clearly found by the trial court in the impugned order that the financial capacity of the complainant is not denied by the accused. However, Sri.V.G.Arun, learned counsel for the accused wold further urge that the case of the complainant is that he had paid Rs.6,00,000/- to the accused by way of three cheques dated 16.12.2010, 10.02.2016 and 04.04.2011 and so the alleged payment of money can be proved by the complainat by producing the relevant documents from the Bank showing withdrawal of the amounts by the accused using those alleged cheques. But that no such documentary evidence has been produced by the complainant. That though the accused has not disputed the financial capacity of the complainant, his case is that the complainant has miserably failed to prove the alleged borrowel of monies through cheque encashment. This Court need not now get into this controversy, for it is for the accused to take up that plea before the trial court. It is clear from a mere reading of paragraph 8 on pages 5 and 6 of the impugned order
